Agenda packet, regular meeting — Union City City Council, September 24, 2024 (part 2 of 3)

RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-24

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNION CITY

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT
WITH BAY AREA TREE SPECIALISTS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $272,200,

FOR THE TREE PRUNING & REMOVAL PROJECT, CITY PROJECT
NO. 25-10, AND APPROVING A TOTAL PROJECT AMOUNT UP TO
$365,000, WHICH INCLUDES A CONTINGENCY OF $92,800, FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER,

IN HER SOLE DISCRETION, TO EXERCISE THE OPTION TO EXTEND

THE AGREEMENT FOR A SECOND YEAR, FOR AN ADDITIONAL
AMOUNT UP TO $365,000, FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025-2026
WHEREAS, the City of Union City has over fifty thousand City-maintained trees in parks, public streets and around City facilities. The City annually budgets funds to address the maintenance of City trees, including inspecting, trimming, pruning, and, on rare occasions, removal based on criteria that balance the protection of the tree as an investment with safety and aesthetics; and
WHEREAS, the Request for Proposals (RFP) for the 2024-2025 Tree Pruning & Removal Project, City Project No. 25-10, was made available on the City website, as well as sent to the active builder exchanges listed in the California Uniform Construction Cost Accounting Commission’s Cost Accounting Policies and Procedures Manual 2019 Edition, and published in the Tri City Voice newspaper for three consecutive weeks, beginning with the July 30, 2024 edition; and
WHEREAS, seven bids were received and were opened on August 27, 2024, at 2:00 p.m.

PST in City Hall. The bids ranged from the lowest bid at $272,200 to the highest bid at $348,740 (See Exhibit A and Exhibit B); and
WHEREAS, the total project budget for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 for the Tree Pruning & Removal Project, City Project No. 25-10, consists of a $272,200 base bid amount for Bay Area Tree Specialists, plus a $92,800 contingency amount (approximately 34%) for emergency situations, such as fallen trees during major storms and strong wind events and unplanned tree maintenance at bid unit prices, for a total project amount of $365,000; and WHEREAS, if City staff is satisfied with the performance of the Bay Area Tree Specialists, the City Manager has the authorization, in her sole discretion, to exercise the option to extend the contract for another year, increasing the compensation by an additional amount of $272,200, and adding contingency amount of $92,800, for an overall contract budget of $365,000 for Fiscal Year 2025-2026; and
WHEREAS, the 5-year Capital Improvement Plan for FY 2023-2024 through FY 2027- 2028 has identified an annual budget of $200,000 in the Gas Tax Fund (2510-3199-92510-54111) and $165,000 in the Lighting & Landscaping Fund (2591-3199-92510-54111) for FY 2024-2025, which is available to award the base contract in the amount of $272,200, with a contingency in the amount of $92,800 for any additional emergencies and unplanned tree pruning, for an overall total project budget of $365,000 for FY 2024-2025. There is currently $150,000 available in the Lighting & Landscaping Fund for FY 2025-2026, and additional funding will be identified as part of the Biennial Budget, which will be completed in Spring 2025.

City Council/RSA Agenda 179 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 Resolution No. XXXX-24
Award FY24-25 Tree Pruning & Removal Contract

Page 2 of 2 ends

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Union City that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute an agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney with Bay Area Tree Specialists, in the amount of $272,200, for the Tree Pruning & Removal Project, City Project No. 25-10, and approving a total contract amount up to $365,000, which includes a contingency of $92,800, for Fiscal Year 2024-2025; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Union City that the City Manager is hereby authorized to exercise the option to extend the agreement with Bay Area Tree Specialists for a second year, for an additional amount up to $365,000, for Fiscal Year 2025- 2026.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Union City at a regular meeting held on the 24th day of September 2024 by the following vote:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:

CAROL DUTRA-VERNACI
Mayor
ATTESTED: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

THAI NAM N. PHAM
City Clerk
KRISTOPHER J. KOKOTAYLO
City Attorney
Attachments:

1. Exhibit A – Bid Summary

2. Exhibit B – Bid Tabulation
City Council/RSA Agenda 180 Tuesday, September 24, 2024

Page 1 of 1 ends

CITY OF UNION CITY

BID SUMMARY
PROJECT: FY2024-2025 Tree Pruning Project, City Project No. 25-10 PROJECT MANAGER: Jesus Banuelos, Public Works Grounds Supervisor [email protected]
DATE: August 27, 2024
TIME: 2:00 p.m.

LOCATION: City Council Chambers
34009 Alvarado-Niles Road, Union City, CA 94587
No BIDDERS BID AMOUNT *CORRECTED

BID AMOUNT

1. Julian Tree Care Inc. $328,000.00 $327,999.50

2. The Professional Tree Care Co. $310,250.00

3. West Coast Arborists, Inc. $299,350.00

4. Monarch Tree Service $301,805.00 $301,645.00

5. Bay Area Tree Specialists $272,200.00

6. Green Field Tree Service Inc. $348,740.00

7. Atlas Tree Service, Inc. None Provided $268,850.00

8. 9.

10. I, Thai Nam Pham, City Clerk of the City of Union City, do hereby certify that on August 27, 2024, I received and opened seven (7) bids for the above-mentioned project. * Note: All bid amounts will be verified by the Engineer. Any corrections will be shown in the column above.

Thai Nam Pham, MMC, CPMC
City Clerk
City Council/RSA Agenda 181 Tuesday, September 24, 2024

BASE BID
ITEM No. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT 1 Emergency Response - Hourly rate for a two-person crew with aerial lift truck and a chipper. Includes travel time one direction and 2-hour minimum
HRS
60 $ 250.00 120,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 320.00 $ 19,200.00 $ 250.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 250.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 216.66 12,999.60 $ 2 Tree Removal – Medium (12” - 17.9”) EA 35 $ 120,000.00 $ 900.00 $ 31,500.00 $ 900.00 $ 31,500.00 $ 721.00 $ 25,235.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 52,500.00 250 $ 8,750.00 3 Tree Removal – Large (18” - 23.9”) EA 10 $ 31,950.00 $ 1,600.00 $ 16,000.00 $ 1,900.00 $ 19,000.00 $ 2,045.00 $ 20,450.00 $ 2,350.00 $ 23,500.00 1000 $ 10,000.00 4 Tree Removal – Very Large (24” and greater) EA 15 $ 24,000.00 $ 3,600.00 $ 54,000.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 52,500.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 52,500.00 $ 4,200.00 $ 63,000.00 5500 $ 82,500.00 5 Tree Pruning – Grid work, Small (0” – 11.9) EA 225 $ 6.60 $ 95.00 $ 21,375.00 $ 90.00 $ 20,250.00 $ 93.00 $ 20,925.00 $ 100.00 $ 22,500.00 100 $ 22,500.00 6 Tree Pruning – Grid work, Medium (12” – 17.9”) EA 330 $ 3.00 $ 155.00 $ 51,150.00 $ 180.00 $ 59,400.00 $ 220.00 $ 72,600.00 $ 175.00 $ 57,750.00 200 $ 66,000.00 7 Tree Pruning – Grid work, Large (18” – 23.9”) EA 140 $ 3.00 $ 280.00 $ 39,200.00 $ 290.00 $ 40,600.00 $ 291.00 $ 40,740.00 $ 250.00 $ 35,000.00 450 $ 63,000.00 8 Tree Pruning – Grid work, Very Large (24” and greater) EA 60 $ 241.00 $ 385.00 $ 23,100.00 $ 590.00 $ 35,400.00 $ 324.00 $ 19,440.00 $ 325.00 $ 19,500.00 500 $ 30,000.00 9 Tree Pruning – Add-on, Small (0” – 11.9) EA 5 $ 6.25 $ 100.00 $ 500.00 $ 90.00 $ 450.00 $ 138.00 $ 690.00 $ 100.00 $ 500.00 100 $ 500.00 10 Tree Pruning – Add-on, Medium (12” – 17.9”) EA 30 $ 149.00 $ 175.00 $ 5,250.00 $ 180.00 $ 5,400.00 $ 420.00 $ 12,600.00 $ 175.00 $ 5,250.00 233.33 $ 6,999.90 11 Tree Pruning - Add-on, Large (18” – 23.9”) EA 25 $ 11.00 $ 325.00 $ 8,125.00 $ 290.00 $ 7,250.00 $ 524.00 $ 13,100.00 $ 250.00 $ 6,250.00 500 $ 12,500.00 12 Tree Pruning - Add-on, Very Large (24” and greater) EA 10 $ 20.00 $ 450.00 $ 4,500.00 $ 590.00 $ 5,900.00 $ 524.00 $ 5,240.00 $ 325.00 $ 3,250.00 600 $ 6,000.00 13 Additional cost per tree for enhanced traffic control involving a lane closure adjacent to high traffic volume streets EA 25 $ 100.00 22.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 100.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 125.00 $ 3,125.00 $ 250.00 $ 6,250.00 $ 250 6,250.00 $ $ 299,350.00 272,200.00 $ 301,645.00 $ 310,250.00 $ 327,999.50 $

UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT $ 11,940.00 199.00 $ 260.00 $ 15,600.00 $ - $ - $
$ 21,000.00 600.00 $ 350.00 $ 12,250.00 $ - $ - $
$ 8,000.00 800.00 $ 600.00 $ 6,000.00 $ - $ - $
$ 45,000.00 3,000.00 $ 1,850.00 $ 27,750.00 $ - $ - $
$ 45,000.00 200.00 $ 190.00 $ 42,750.00 $ - $ - $
$ 85,800.00 260.00 $ 225.00 $ 74,250.00 $ - $ - $
$ 43,400.00 310.00 $ 330.00 $ 46,200.00 $ - $ - $
$ 36,000.00 600.00 $ 330.00 $ 19,800.00 $ - $ - $
$ 1,050.00 210.00 $ 190.00 $ 950.00 $ - $ - $
$ 7,800.00 260.00 $ 225.00 $ 6,750.00 $ - $ - $
$ 8,250.00 330.00 $ 330.00 $ 8,250.00 $ - $ - $
$ 6,000.00 600.00 $ 330.00 $ 3,300.00 $ - $ - $
$ 29,500.00 1,180.00 $ 200.00 $ 5,000.00 $ - $ - $
$ 268,850.00 348,740.00 $ - $ - $
Julian Tree Care Inc.

Atlas Tree Service, Inc.

West Coast Arborists, Inc. Monarch Tree Service The Professional Tree Care Co.

CITY OF UNION CITY
34009 Alvarado Niles Road
Bay Area Tree Specialists
FY2024-2025 Tree Pruning Project
(City Proj. No. 25-10)

BID SCHEDULE
Greenfied Tree Service Inc.

Total (Basis of Award)
City Council/RSA Agenda 182 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 Agenda Item
DATE: 9/24/2024
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: MARILOU AYUPAN, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE

STUDENT TRANSIT PASS PROGRAM PROJECT FUNDING AGREEMENT WITH THE

ALAMEDA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, IN A FORM APPROVED BY THE

CITYATTORNEY
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the Student Transit Pass Program Project Funding Agreement with the Alameda County Transportation Commission, in a form approved by the City Attorney.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
There is no direct alignment with the Strategic Plan goals.

BACKGROUND
The Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC) delivers transportation projects and programs including those approved by voters in the 2014 Alameda County transportation expenditure plans for Measure BB sales tax. Alameda CTC’s 2014 Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) guides investments of Measure BB revenues towards capital projects and programs that improve the countywide transportation system. One of those programs in the TEP, the Student Transit Pass Program (STPP), began as a pilot program in August 2016. The STPP expands transportation options and makes it easier for Alameda County’s middle and high school students to travel to and from school and school-related programs, jobs and other activities.

The program’s goals are to:

Reduce transportation access barriers to and from schools Improve transportation options for Alameda County’s middle and high school students Build support for transit in Alameda County
Implement a cost-effective Student Transit Pass Program City Council/RSA Agenda 183 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 Several pilot program models were tested during the initial three (3)-year pilot program. As a result of the effective implementation and evaluation of the pilot STPP, the Alameda CTC approved, in December 2018, the continuation and expansion of the program through June 30, 2023. More than 160 Alameda County schools now participate in the program.

The two (2) current program models are Universal Eligibility and Means-Based Eligibility. The New Haven Unified School District (NHUSD), along with most other Alameda County school districts, follow the Means-Based Eligibility Model.

Students in grades 6 through 12 who are eligible for free or reduced-priced meals can apply for a Student Transit Pass through their school’s program site administrator. Once approved, students are issued a specially programmed Clipper® card that can be used for unlimited free trips on Union City Transit, Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit), or LivermoreAmador Valley Transportation Authority (LAVTA/Wheels), fifty percent (50%) off Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) fares, and discounts on other transit systems in the San Francisco Bay Area where Clipper® is accepted. There are no time or day restrictions on the pass; it can be used during non-school days or hours.

The following NHUSD schools participate in the program:

Cesar Chavez Middle School
Conley-Caraballo High School
Decoto School for Independent Study
Itliong-Vera Cruz Middle School
James Logan High School
Additional information about the STPP can be found at the following website https://www.alamedactc.org/programsprojects/studentpass.

DISCUSSION
The Alameda CTC is now continuing the STPP as an ongoing program for an additional five (5) years. The updated project funding agreement (Agreement) covers program operations funding for three (3) years from FY 2023-2024 through FY 2025- 2026. Funding for the subsequent years (FY 2026-2027 and FY 2027-2028) will be determined by the start of each fiscal year and amended into the Agreement.

In the updated Agreement (Appendix A), Union City (dba Union City Transit) will continue to provide an institutional pass product through the Clipper® card program. As students use these special Clipper® cards, the boardings are tallied without any financial transaction. Union City then periodically uses Clipper® ridership reports to invoice the appropriate funding source for the uncollected fare revenue. The two (2) eligible funding sources are Measure BB sales tax and State Transit Assistance (STA) Block Grant, the latter also being administered by the Alameda CTC. Union City is reimbursed based on the full youth cash fare, which is currently $1.25 per ride.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no impact on Union City Transit funding or fare revenues. The Alameda CTC will fully reimburse Union City for all uncollected fare revenue.

There will be no impact on the General Fund.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the Student Transit Pass Program Project Funding Agreement with the Alameda CTC, in a form approved by the City Attorney.

City Council/RSA Agenda 184 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 Prepared by:

Wilson Lee, Project Specialist
Submitted by:

Steve Adams, Transit Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description Type
Draft Resolution Resolution
Attachment 1 - Project Funding Agreement Attachment
City Council/RSA Agenda 185 Tuesday, September 24, 2024

Page 1 of 2 ends

RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-24

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF UNION CITY AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER

TO EXECUTE THE STUDENT TRANSIT PASS PROGRAM

PROJECT FUNDING AGREEMENT WITH THE ALAMEDA

COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, IN A FORM

APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY
WHEREAS, in 2014, Alameda County voters approved Measure BB, a countywide transportation sales tax; and
WHEREAS, the Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC) administers the Measure BB funds to deliver essential transportation improvements and services; and
WHEREAS, the Alameda CTC’s 2014 Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) guides investments of Measure BB revenues towards capital projects and programs that improve the countywide transportation system; and
WHEREAS, a Student Transit Pass Program (STPP) was identified as one of the investments of the 2014 TEP; and
WHEREAS, the STPP expands transportation options and makes it easier for Alameda County’s middle and high school students to travel to and from school and school-related programs, jobs, and other activities; and
WHEREAS, the STPP goals are to reduce transportation access barriers to and from schools, improve transportation options for Alameda County’s middle and high school students, build support for transit in Alameda County, and implement a cost-effective program; and WHEREAS, the STPP began as a three (3)-year pilot program in 2016 and was extended through June 2023; and
WHEREAS, more than 160 Alameda County schools now participate in the program; and WHEREAS, income-eligible middle and high school students in the New Haven Unified School District (NHUSD) who qualify for the STPP will be issued a special Clipper® card that can be used for unlimited free trips on Union City Transit, Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit), or Livermore-Amador Valley Transportation Authority (LAVTA/Wheels), fifty percent (50%) off Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) fares, and discounts on other transit systems in the San Francisco Bay Area where Clipper® is accepted; and WHEREAS, the Alameda CTC is now continuing the STPP as an ongoing program for an additional five (5) years through an updated project funding agreement (Agreement) (Appendix A) covering program operations funding for three (3) years from FY 2023-2024 through FY 2025- 2026 with funding for the subsequent years (FY 2026-2027 and FY 2027-2028) to be determined by the start of each fiscal year and amended into the Agreement; and City Council/RSA Agenda 186 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 Resolution No. XXXX-24
ACTC Student Transit Pass Program

Page 2 of 2 ends

WHEREAS, through the updated Agreement (Appendix A), Union City (dba Union City Transit) will continue to provide an institutional pass product through the Clipper® card program to tally rides by students for invoicing one of the two (2) eligible funding sources, Measure BB sales tax or State Transit Assistance (STA) Block Grant, to be reimbursed for uncollected fares in the full youth cash fare amount of $1.25 per ride; and
WHEREAS, there will be no impact to the General Fund.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Union City hereby adopts a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the Student Transit Pass Program Project Funding Agreement with the Alameda CTC in a form approved by the City Attorney.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Union City at a regular meeting held this 24th day of September 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:

CAROL DUTRA-VERNACI
Mayor
ATTESTED: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

THAI NAM N. PHAM
City Clerk
KRISTOPHER J. KOKOTAYLO
City Attorney
City Council/RSA Agenda 187 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 Alameda CTC Agreement No. A24-0011
Project No. 1423.001

Page 1 of 16 ends

2021 PFA Version

PROJECT FUNDING AGREEMENT
between

ALAMEDA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
and the

CITY OF UNION CITY
for the

STUDENT TRANSIT PASS PROGRAM
This Project Funding Agreement (“AGREEMENT”), dated for reference purposes only as of June 27, 2019, is entered into by and between ALAMEDA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, a joint powers agency (“ALAMEDA CTC”), and the CITY OF UNION CITY, a public agency (“PROJECT SPONSOR”).

This AGREEMENT obligates funds from one or more ALAMEDA CTC administered funding programs as indicated below, and as further specified in Appendix A: Project Control Information and Appendix B:

Alameda CTC Administered Funds Obligated by this AGREEMENT, for the PROJECT, as such term is defined in Recital K below.
☐ 2000 Measure B
☒ 2014 Measure BB
☐ Vehicle Registration Fee
☐ Transportation Fund for Clean Air
☐ CMA TIP

RECITALS
A. The voters of Alameda County, pursuant to the provisions of the Bay Area County Traffic and Transportation Funding Act, Public Utilities Code Section 131000, et seq., approved Measure B at the General Election held in November 1986, authorizing the collection of a one-half cent transaction and use tax over a fifteen (15)-year period to address major transportation needs and congestion in Alameda County and giving Alameda County Transportation Authority (“ACTA”) the responsibility for the administration of the proceeds of the tax. The proceeds from the 1986 Measure B tax have been and continue to be used to pay for investments as outlined in the 1986 Alameda County Transportation Expenditure Plan (“1986 TEP”), as it may be amended. Although collection of the 1986 Measure B tax ceased in 2002, capital projects funded wholly or in part by 1986 Measure B funds are still being delivered using these funds.

B. The voters of Alameda County, pursuant to the provisions of the Local Transportation Authority and Improvement Act, Public Utilities Code Section 180000, et seq., approved the reauthorization of Measure B at the General Election held on November 7, 2000, authorizing the collection of a one-half cent transaction and use tax to be collected for twenty (20) years beginning April 1, 2002 and giving Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority (“ACTIA”) responsibility for the administration of the proceeds of the tax. The proceeds from the 2000 Measure B tax have been and continue to be used to pay for investments as outlined in the 2000 Alameda County Transportation Expenditure Plan (“2000 TEP”), as it may be amended.

C. The voters of Alameda County, pursuant to Section 65089.20 of the Government Code, approved Measure F, the Vehicle Registration Fee (“VRF”), authorizing Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (“ACCMA”) to administer the proceeds from a $10 per year vehicle registration fee on City Council/RSA Agenda 188 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 Alameda CTC Agreement No. A24-0011
Project No. 1423.001

Page 2 of 16 ends

2021 PFA Version
each annual motor-vehicle registration in Alameda County, starting with registrations effective July 2011 with collection beginning in May 2011, six months following approval of Measure F. Vehicles subject to the VRF include all motorized vehicles, including passenger cars, light-duty trucks, medium-duty trucks, heavy-duty trucks, buses of all sizes, motorcycles, and motorized camper homes, unless vehicles are expressly exempted from the payment of the VRF.

D. By resolutions adopted by the ACTA and ACTIA Boards on June 24, 2010, all of ACTA’s functions and responsibilities were assigned to, and accepted by, ACTIA. On that same date, the ACTIA and ACCMA Boards took the final actions to create ALAMEDA CTC, a joint powers authority with all responsibilities of ACTIA and ACCMA. Pursuant to resolutions adopted by the ACTIA and ACCMA, Boards and the Commission of ALAMEDA CTC, ACCMA and ACTIA were terminated as of the close of business on February 29, 2012, with ALAMEDA CTC designated as the successor entity. All of its predecessors’ functions and responsibilities have been assigned to, and accepted by, ALAMEDA CTC.

E. The voters of Alameda County, pursuant to the provisions of the Local Transportation Authority and Improvement Act, California Public Utilities Code Section 180000 et seq., approved Measure BB at the General Election held on November 4, 2014, authorizing the extension of an existing one-half of one percent transaction and use tax scheduled to terminate on March 31, 2022, and the augmentation of the tax by one-half of one percent, and giving ALAMEDA CTC responsibility for the administration of the proceeds of the 2014 Measure BB tax. The duration of the 2014 Measure BB tax will be 30 years from the initial year of collection, which began April 1, 2015, with said tax to terminate/expire on March 31, 2045. The proceeds from the 2014 Measure BB will be used to pay for investments as outlined in the 2014 Alameda County Transportation Expenditure Plan (“2014 TEP”), as it may be amended.

F. As the Transportation Fund for Clean Air (“TFCA”) Program Manager in Alameda County, ALAMEDA CTC annually programs 40 percent of the TFCA funds collected in Alameda County. ALAMEDA CTC receives these funds from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (“BAAQMD”), and then distributes these funds on a reimbursement basis to eligible project sponsors.

G. ALAMEDA CTC is continuing the implementation of the CMA Exchange Program, originally established by the ACCMA, for the purpose of providing local or otherwise unrestricted funds to ALAMEDA CTC for use in projects and programs adopted into the CMA Transportation Improvement Program (“CMA TIP”) by ALAMEDA CTC.

H. The funding programs administered by ALAMEDA CTC and available for projects and programs that benefit the Alameda County transportation system, consisting of 1986 Measure B, 2000 Measure B, 2014 Measure BB, VRF, TFCA, and CMA TIP, are collectively defined as and shall be referenced herein as the “ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS”. Requirements related to 2000 Measure B, VRF and 2014 Measure BB Direct Local Distribution (“DLD”) funding distributed pursuant to 2000 Measure B, VRF and 2014 Measure BB Transportation Expenditure Plans are covered by separate agreements between ALAMEDA CTC and DLD recipients.

I. Measure B, Measure BB, VRF, and TFCA funds obligated by this AGREEMENT shall be programmed, allocated, and expended for the purpose defined and in accordance with the provisions set City Council/RSA Agenda 189 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 Alameda CTC Agreement No. A24-0011
Project No. 1423.001

Page 3 of 16 ends

2021 PFA Version
forth in the applicable transportation expenditure plans, or the BAAQMD-approved TFCA County Program Manager Policies.

J. ALAMEDA CTC programs and allocates ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS through the ALAMEDA CTC Comprehensive Investment Plan (“CIP”) that is updated periodically to summarize the programming and allocations of ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS, and the policies, procedures and requirements related to the expenditure of ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS.

K. The PROJECT SPONSOR is implementing a project or program (“PROJECT”) that is eligible for ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS. The PROJECT and the strategy to implement the PROJECT are described in greater detail in Appendix A: Project Control Information.

L. This AGREEMENT obligates funds from one or more of ALAMEDA CTC administered funding programs as specified in Appendix B: Alameda CTC Administered Funds Obligated by this Agreement, for the PROJECT and the phase(s) described in Appendix A: Project Control Information.

ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS obligated by this AGREEMENT are available to reimburse eligible costs incurred by PROJECT SPONSOR for the PROJECT and the phase(s) described in Appendix A: Project Control Information.

M. The issuance of bonds or another financing mechanism are possible funding options as part of ALAMEDA CTC administered funding programs to meet cash flow requirements of each individual program based on current schedule and project delivery information.

NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between the parties as follows:

SECTION I
PROJECT SPONSOR AGREES:

1. PROJECT SPONSOR shall implement the PROJECT in accordance with all requirements in this AGREEMENT and the following appendices attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. a. Appendix A: Project Control Information
b. Appendix B: Alameda CTC Administered Funds Obligated by this Agreement c. Appendix C: Alameda CTC Request for Reimbursement and Reporting Requirements d. Appendix D: Local Business Contract Equity Program [Intentionally Omitted] e. Appendix E: Deliverables and Due Dates
f. Appendix F: Project Performance Measures
g. Appendix G: Transportation Fund for Clean Air Policies and Requirements [Intentionally Omitted]

2. PROJECT SPONSOR shall perform the necessary work associated with the PROJECT required to implement PROJECT as described in Appendix A: Project Control Information.

City Council/RSA Agenda 190 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 Alameda CTC Agreement No. A24-0011
Project No. 1423.001

Page 4 of 16 ends

2021 PFA Version

3. PROJECT SPONSOR shall inform ALAMEDA CTC in writing of any changes to the information contained in Appendix A: Project Control Information as soon as PROJECT SPONSOR becomes aware of such changes. Per Section III.2, any change that requires an amendment to this AGREEMENT must be approved by ALAMEDA CTC, prior to PROJECT SPONSOR implementing the change.

4. PROJECT SPONSOR shall commit to the timing of ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS as described in Appendix B: Alameda CTC Administered Funds Obligated by this Agreement.

5. PROJECT SPONSOR shall expend ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS received under this AGREEMENT in accordance with all applicable provisions of law and shall return to ALAMEDA CTC all funds that are not expended in accordance with all applicable provisions of law.

6. PROJECT SPONSOR shall be responsible for costs in excess of the total funding obligations shown in Appendix A: Project Control Information. Costs in excess of the total funding obligations will not be reimbursed with ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS unless this AGREEMENT is amended in a writing signed by all parties or the parties execute a separate agreement for a subsequent phase of the PROJECT.

7. PROJECT SPONSOR shall return to ALAMEDA CTC, on a pro-rated basis, funds realized from the sale of any vehicle(s) purchased with ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS, if the sale of the vehicle(s) is completed prior to the last day of the last year listed as the PROJECT’S “Years of Effectiveness” as identified in either Appendix A: Project Control Information or Appendix G: Transportation Fund for Clean Air Policies and Requirements, as applicable. The amount of sale proceeds required to be returned to ALAMEDA CTC shall be proportional to the percentage of ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS originally used to purchase the vehicle(s).

8. PROJECT SPONSOR staff costs for any local agency which receives DLD funding shall not be eligible for reimbursement from ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS allocated to the PROJECT unless staff costs are specifically identified as eligible in Appendix A: Project Control Information. Staff costs included in Appendix A are limited to project implementation costs. Staff costs related to the administration of this AGREEMENT including preparation of requests for reimbursement or progress reports are ineligible for reimbursement. PROJECT SPONSOR staff costs funded by other sources can be included in the total cost for the purpose of meeting the cost and risk sharing provisions of this AGREEMENT.

9. PROJECT SPONSOR staff costs eligible for reimbursement may include the individual’s actual hourly wage plus a fringe benefit rate, as approved by a cognizant agency or an independent auditor, of up to a maximum of 70% of the hourly wage. Staff costs also may include direct costs including contracted services, such as legal counsel, that are considered an extension of the PROJECT SPONSOR’S staff.

10. PROJECT SPONSOR overhead, or "indirect," costs are not eligible for reimbursement from ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS obligated by this AGREEMENT, and shall not be included in the total eligible PROJECT cost calculations used to determine the ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS share of such total eligible PROJECT costs.

City Council/RSA Agenda 191 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 Alameda CTC Agreement No. A24-0011
Project No. 1423.001

Page 5 of 16 ends

2021 PFA Version

11. The cost of maintenance, security, or protection performed by PROJECT SPONSOR or thirdparty contractors during any temporary suspension of activities associated with the PROJECT will not be considered an eligible cost for reimbursement by ALAMEDA CTC.

12. PROJECT SPONSOR shall advertise, award and administer all professional services contracts for PROJECT work not performed by PROJECT SPONSOR.

13. PROJECT SPONSOR shall invite ALAMEDA CTC staff to participate as a voting member of PROJECT SPONSOR’s selection panel for the selection of all professional consultants, and furnish drafts of all professional services contracts, upon ALAMEDA CTC’s request.

14. All locally funded contracts approved by PROJECT SPONSOR, funded wholly or in part with Measure B, Measure BB, and/or Vehicle Registration Fee funds administered by ALAMEDA CTC, except for contracts that also include state and/or federal funds or contracts funding non-capital projects (e.g., transit operations), are required to comply with ALAMEDA CTC’s Local Business Contract Equity (LBCE) Program as listed and described in Appendix D: Local Business Contract Equity Program Requirements. PROJECT SPONSOR shall comply with the reporting requirements set forth in the LBCE Program and provide the required information to ALAMEDA CTC in accordance with Appendix D for all contracts partially or wholly funded by ALAMEDA CTC, whether or not the specific contract is subject to the LBCE Program.

15. PROJECT SPONSOR shall require insurance coverage that names ALAMEDA CTC, its governing body, officers, employees and consultants as additional insureds of the PROJECT SPONSOR, professional services consultants and subconsultants, construction services contractors and subcontractors, volunteer service individuals, and any other contractors or subcontractors involved with the PROJECT on all insurance required by PROJECT SPONSOR for PROJECT. PROJECT SPONSOR shall keep and maintain insurance certificates and policy endorsements evidencing the policies on file, and furnish the same to ALAMEDA CTC upon request. ALAMEDA CTC will not be responsible for any premiums or assessments on any policy. If this AGREEMENT includes any TFCA funds, PROJECT SPONSOR shall also comply with the insurance requirements specified in Appendix G: Transportation Fund for Clean Air Policies and Requirements.

16. PROJECT SPONSOR shall provide ALAMEDA CTC with periodic (i.e., monthly, quarterly or semi-annually) progress reports describing the current status of the PROJECT. The required progress reporting frequency schedule and forms are provided in Appendix C: Alameda CTC Request for Reimbursement and Reporting Requirements. Progress reports are due by the last day of each calendar month following the established reporting period in which the work was performed. These reports shall include PROJECT status information such as the scope of work completed to date, total costs incurred, future actions, project performance, issues identification, changes to scope or schedule, and any additional relevant information requested by ALAMEDA CTC.

17. PROJECT SPONSOR shall submit to ALAMEDA CTC a Request for Reimbursement in accordance with the minimum required invoicing frequency established for the PROJECT, but not more than one such request per month, for reimbursement of eligible PROJECT costs and expenses incurred by PROJECT SPONSOR. The required minimum invoicing frequency and invoice forms are provided in Appendix C:

Alameda CTC Request for Reimbursement and Reporting Requirements. If PROJECT SPONSOR does not City Council/RSA Agenda 192 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 Alameda CTC Agreement No. A24-0011
Project No. 1423.001

Page 6 of 16 ends

2021 PFA Version
incur any reimbursable expenses during the minimum invoicing period, in lieu of submitting an invoice, PROJECT SPONSOR shall submit a letter or a statement as part of the required progress report for the same period confirming that no reimbursable costs were incurred during the given period. If PROJECT SPONSOR requests reimbursement for costs incurred as a result of a contract or agreement with a third party that contains a contract value of $50,000 or greater, e.g. a consultant, contractor or other entity, PROJECT SPONSOR shall submit an electronic copy of the fully executed contract or agreement to ALAMEDA CTC prior to ALAMEDA CTC authorizing reimbursement of such costs. Supporting documentation for the Request for Reimbursement packages includes copies of invoices from vendors, consultants, or contractors and summaries of eligible PROJECT SPONSOR staff time charges. PROJECT SPONSOR may suggest an alternative method, subject to approval in advance by ALAMEDA CTC, to document staff costs charged to the PROJECT.

18. PROJECT SPONSOR shall provide a Parcel and Utility Agreement Tracking Log upon ALAMEDA CTC’s request, if the PROJECT includes the acquisition of right-of-way and/or the relocation or protection of utility facilities.

19. PROJECT SPONSOR shall keep all necessary PROJECT records to demonstrate compliance with this AGREEMENT, including documentation of activities, performance, progress reports, final report, expenses and charges to support invoices submitted to ALAMEDA CTC and other PROJECT reporting requirements as described in Appendix C: Alameda CTC Request for Reimbursement and Reporting Requirements in one central location for a period of not less than five (5) years after the later of (i) ALAMEDA CTC’s payment of the final invoice, (ii) the PROJECT SPONSOR’S submittal of the Final Report for ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS under this AGREEMENT, and (iii) the end of the PROJECT’S established “Years of Effectiveness” period (as identified in Appendix G: Transportation Fund for Clean Air Policies and Requirements) if any TFCA funds are provided under this AGREEMENT. a. PROJECT SPONSOR and PROJECT SPONSOR’s contractors and subcontractors shall each maintain and make available for inspection and audit all books, documents, papers, accounting records, and other evidence pertaining to the performance of such contracts, including, but not limited to, the costs of administering those various contracts. b. PROJECT SPONSOR shall allow ALAMEDA CTC or its authorized representatives to inspect, audit, or make copies of any PROJECT records for a period of five (5) years after ALAMEDA CTC’s payment of the final invoice and the PROJECT SPONSOR’S submittal of the Final Report. The same access also shall be granted to BAAQMD or its authorized representatives for TFCA funds obligated by this AGREEMENT.

20. PROJECT SPONSOR shall comply with all of the following publicity requirements to inform the public on the use of ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS on the PROJECT. a. PROJECT SPONSOR shall credit ALAMEDA CTC as a funding source and display the approved ALAMEDA CTC logo, where practical, on construction informational signs, vehicles or equipment operated or obtained as part of the PROJECT, and on any publicly distributed information (e.g., fact sheets, flyers, brochures, maps, schedules, websites, press releases), created for or associated with the PROJECT. For TFCA funding obligated through City Council/RSA Agenda 193 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 Alameda CTC Agreement No. A24-0011
Project No. 1423.001

Page 7 of 16 ends

2021 PFA Version
this AGREEMENT, SPONSOR shall also credit the BAAQMD as a funding source and display the BAAQMD-approved TFCA logo.
b. PROJECT SPONSOR shall provide updated and accurate PROJECT information on the PROJECT SPONSOR’s website, or create such a website if none exists, and provide a link to ALAMEDA CTC website.
c. PROJECT SPONSOR shall publish an article in a printed or electronically distributed publication such as a newsletter, local newspaper, e-publications, or website highlighting the PROJECT and the use of ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS at least once per fiscal year.

For TFCA funding obligated through this AGREEMENT, SPONSOR shall also credit the BAAQMD as a funding source.
d. PROJECT SPONSOR shall document compliance with the publicity requirements and furnish such documentation upon request, and regularly through the progress and final reporting required by this AGREEMENT, through evidence such as photos of construction and vehicle signage, copies of print, electronic and other media published to satisfy this requirement.

For TFCA funding obligated through this AGREEMENT, SPONSOR shall also document that the BAAQMD was credited as a funding source and the BAAQMD-approved TFCA logos were displayed.
e. PROJECT SPONSOR shall notify ALAMEDA CTC and request an exemption as soon as it is reasonably known that the PROJECT SPONSOR is unable to fulfill the requirements under this Section I.20 due to extraordinary circumstances.

21. PROJECT SPONSOR shall, to the extent not otherwise prohibited by law, and to the extent required by the California Public Records Act (California Government Code section 6250 et seq.), place in the public domain any software, written document, or other product developed with ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS received through this AGREEMENT.

22. PROJECT SPONSOR shall participate, upon the request of ALAMEDA CTC, in a Public Awareness Program in partnership with ALAMEDA CTC and/or its community advisory committees as a means of informing the public of the benefits derived from the use of ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS.

23. PROJECT SPONSOR shall obtain all state, local and federal permits and approvals for work, including environmental approvals in accordance with the National Environment Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as applicable. PROJECT SPONSOR will comply with all applicable state and federal laws and regulations.

24. PROJECT SPONSOR shall render a report or answer any and all inquiries, upon ALAMEDA CTC’s request, in regards to its receipt of ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS, compliance audit findings, and usage of ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS before the ALAMEDA CTC Commission, Independent Watchdog Committee, and/or community advisory committees, as applicable.

City Council/RSA Agenda 194 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 Alameda CTC Agreement No. A24-0011
Project No. 1423.001

Page 8 of 16 ends

2021 PFA Version

25. For TFCA funds obligated by this AGREEMENT, a PROJECT SPONSOR who has failed a BAAQMD financial or performance audit for the PROJECT will be excluded from receiving an award of any TFCA funds for five (5) years from the date of BAAQMD’s final audit determination. Existing TFCA funds already awarded to the SPONSOR will not be released until all audit recommendations and remedies have been satisfactorily implemented. A failed BAAQMD financial audit means a final audit report that includes an uncorrected audit finding that confirms an ineligible expenditure of TFCA funds. A failed BAAQMD performance audit means that the PROJECT was not implemented in accordance with the AGREEMENT.

SPONSOR shall be afforded a reasonable amount of time to address/cure adverse audit findings.

26. For TFCA funds obligated by this AGREEMENT, PROJECT SPONSOR shall return to ALAMEDA CTC, on a pro-rated basis, TFCA funds received under this AGREEMENT if PROJECT is not maintained and/or operated throughout, and at least until the conclusion of, its “Years of Effectiveness” as identified in Appendix G: Transportation Fund for Clean Air Policies and Requirements.

27. For TFCA funds obligated by this AGREEMENT, PROJECT SPONSOR shall submit a TFCA Final Report to the ALAMEDA CTC. The required content for the TFCA Final Report is identified in the TFCA Final Report Form referenced in Appendix G.

SECTION II
ALAMEDA CTC AGREES:

1. ALAMEDA CTC shall make a good faith effort to provide all ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS obligated by this AGREEMENT.

2. ALAMEDA CTC shall assist PROJECT SPONSOR when able, upon request and as necessary, in resolving issues related to the PROJECT.

3. ALAMEDA CTC shall provide a copy of its approved logo for PROJECT SPONSOR to use as required by this AGREEMENT.

4. ALAMEDA CTC shall provide notice to the PROJECT SPONSOR of any and all expenditures made by PROJECT SPONSOR, which are not in compliance with the AGREEMENT or the applicable ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS promptly after ALAMEDA CTC becomes aware of any such expenditures.

5. ALAMEDA CTC shall provide timely notice to PROJECT SPONSOR prior to conducting an audit of expenditures made by PROJECT SPONSOR to determine whether such expenditures are compliant with this AGREEMENT or the applicable ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS.

City Council/RSA Agenda 195 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 Alameda CTC Agreement No. A24-0011
Project No. 1423.001

Page 9 of 16 ends

2021 PFA Version

SECTION III
IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:

1. That ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS obligated by this AGREEMENT may be shifted between the phases of the PROJECT or between activities in the same phase of the PROJECT, so long as each of the following occurs: 1) PROJECT SPONSOR submits a written amendment request that provides revised and updated Appendix A: Project Control Information forms documenting the requested funding obligation shift and demonstrating to ALAMEDA CTC’s satisfaction that the phase or activity from which the funds were shifted remains fully funded, and 2) the parties execute an amendment to this AGREEMENT incorporating the revised and updated Appendix A forms as described above, which amendment shall be approved by ALAMEDA CTC pursuant to applicable ALAMEDA CTC policies.

2. ALAMEDA CTC and the PROJECT SPONSOR may jointly authorize an “Administrative Amendment” for any minor schedule revisions, deliverables, or budget revisions that do not increase the total ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS obligated by this AGREEMENT. Any change in the PROJECT scope of work must be approved by ALAMEDA CTC prior to implementation of the change by the PROJECT SPONSOR. Administrative amendment requests sent to ALAMEDA CTC must include a revised Appendix A:

Project Control Information which reflects the requested changes by the PROJECT SPONSOR.

3. For the purposes of this AGREEMENT, (i) a “Contract” shall mean and refer to a third party agreement with the PROJECT SPONSOR for services related to PROJECT, including agreements with another public agency, consultant firm, contractor or entity; (ii) “PROJECT SPONSOR Staff” costs include costs for staff dedicated directly to project implementation, management, oversight, and/or project development and may include direct costs including contracted services, such as legal counsel, that are considered an extension of PROJECT SPONSOR Staff; (iii) “Capital” with respect to any Right-of-Way Capital phase shall mean and refer to the cost to acquire real property, access rights and other property interests; and (iv) “Agreement Expiration Date” shall mean and refer to the expiration date of this AGREEMENT.

4. Reimbursable costs will be limited to the costs shown in Appendix A: Project Control Information. Funds expended for work directly related to the phases of the PROJECT covered by this AGREEMENT prior to the applicable allowable start date identified in Appendix B: ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS Obligated by this AGREEMENT are ineligible for reimbursement pursuant to this AGREEMENT. ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS obligated by this AGREEMENT are subject to fund availability and any new requirements and policies imposed by ALAMEDA CTC. The AGREEMENT shall be amended, as necessary, to reflect the applicable requirements.

5. If additional local, state or federal funding is obtained to partially offset ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS planned for the PROJECT, ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS will not be transferred from the PROJECT until after it is ensured that all phases of the PROJECT can be fully delivered.

ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS offset by additional local, state or federal funding shall be available for PROJECT only after all other funding planned for PROJECT, as described in Appendix A: Project Control Information, has been committed and/or encumbered to the PROJECT.

City Council/RSA Agenda 196 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 Alameda CTC Agreement No. A24-0011
Project No. 1423.001

Page 10 of 16 ends

2021 PFA Version

6. Should any portion of PROJECT be financed with federal or state funds, all applicable laws, rules and policies relating to the use of such funds shall apply, notwithstanding other provisions of this AGREEMENT.

7. For TFCA funds obligated by this AGREEMENT, this AGREEMENT is subject to the current BAAQMD-approved TFCA County Program Manager Fund Policies included in Appendix G:

Transportation Fund for Clean Air Policies and Requirements and any new requirements imposed by the BAAQMD upon ALAMEDA CTC with respect to the TFCA funds distributed hereunder. ALAMEDA CTC will only distribute TFCA funds under this AGREEMENT to the extent the documented project costs are eligible under the applicable BAAQMD TFCA Policies.

8. The laws of the State of California shall govern this AGREEMENT.

9. All correspondence and communications will contain ALAMEDA CTC project number and name for PROJECT in a clearly identifiable location. For projects with TFCA funds obligated by this AGREEMENT, all correspondence and communications will also contain the TFCA project number as identified in Appendix G: Transportation Fund for Clean Air Policies and Requirements.

10. ALAMEDA CTC reserves the right to conduct technical and financial audits of PROJECT work and records when determined to be necessary or appropriate and PROJECT SPONSOR agrees, and shall require its contractors and subcontractors to agree, to cooperate with ALAMEDA CTC by making all appropriate and relevant PROJECT records promptly available for audit and copying.

11. PROJECT costs incurred by PROJECT SPONSOR are only eligible for reimbursement on a prorated basis unless specifically provided for in Appendix A: Project Control Information, and PROJECT SPONSOR is expected to concurrently seek reimbursement from the other sources shown in Project A: Project Control Information. Pro-rated basis, as used herein, equals the amount of ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS obligated by this AGREEMENT to a phase, divided by the total funding for the phase, as shown in Appendix A: Project Control Information. For any Request for Reimbursement which includes such expenditures, PROJECT SPONSOR shall (i) report the total expenditures during the reimbursement period, (ii) indicate the percentage of the total expenditures for the phase expected to be funded by ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS obligated by this AGREEMENT, and (iii) request reimbursement for the dollar amount which equals the product of such total expenditures and such percentage.

12. ALAMEDA CTC approval of PROJECT SPONSOR submitted Requests for Reimbursement will be contingent on the submittal of progress reports and deliverables by PROJECT SPONSOR as required by this AGREEMENT. In the event that progress reports and deliverables are not complete and current, approval of Requests for Reimbursement shall be withheld until an acceptable remedy has been implemented and approved by ALAMEDA CTC. If PROJECT SPONSOR fails to submit the required deliverables or otherwise fails to meet the reporting and invoicing requirements of this AGREEMENT, ALAMEDA CTC may deobligate funds from the PROJECT and this AGREEMENT. Not less than thirty (30) days prior to the effective date of any such action, ALAMEDA CTC will endeavor to notify PROJECT SPONSOR in writing that the required deliverables, invoicing and reporting is overdue.

City Council/RSA Agenda 197 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 Alameda CTC Agreement No. A24-0011
Project No. 1423.001

Page 11 of 16 ends

2021 PFA Version

13. Request for Reimbursements submitted after the Agreement Expiration Date identified in Appendix B: Alameda CTC Administered Funds Obligated by this AGREEMENT will be ineligible for reimbursement by ALAMEDA CTC unless an exception is requested by the PROJECT SPONSOR no less than sixty (60) days before the Agreement Expiration Date, and the exception is approved by ALAMEDA CTC.

ALAMEDA CTC will deobligate any remaining ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS from PROJECT and this AGREEMENT.

14. Each Right-of-Way transaction which is funded either wholly or in part with ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS shall be subject to repayment or reimbursement to ALAMEDA CTC under ALAMEDA CTC Policies in effect as of the effective date of this AGREEMENT, irrespective of the party holding title to the real estate which is the subject of the Right-of-Way transaction in question. The parties agree that Section III.15(a) through Section III.15(f), the provisions of which are intended to provide further detail regarding the application of such Policies, shall govern the extent to which such repayment is required and the conditions applicable to any such repayment. If such Policies are amended after the effective date of this AGREEMENT by ALAMEDA CTC, the PROJECT SPONSOR and ALAMEDA CTC shall execute an amendment to this AGREEMENT which references the revised Policies.

15. For the purposes of the following provisions, “ALAMEDA CTC Share” shall mean the percentage share of the original property purchase price funded by ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS (i.e., if the purchase was fully funded by ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS, ALAMEDA CTC Share shall equal 100%); any appraisal required under Section III.15(a) and Section III.15(f) only, shall be conducted at no cost to ALAMEDA CTC; “Fair Market Value” of a given property shall mean the net proceeds from the sale of such property if such sale occurs in an open market transaction or by auction, or the value of the property determined by an independent third-party appraisal of the property if some or all of the property is retained by PROJECT SPONSOR or otherwise transferred to any other party without an auction or open market transaction; and “CPI” means the Consumer Price Index, All Items for All Urban Consumers, San FranciscoOakland, San Jose, CA. a. If any property is acquired for the PROJECT using ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS to finance some or all of the acquisition, and the PROJECT is cancelled or otherwise does not begin construction within five (5) years after the effective date of AGREEMENT (as such deadline may be extended by agreement between the parties hereto), then PROJECT SPONSOR shall, within one (1) year after such cancellation decision or the expiration of such five (5) year period, reimburse ALAMEDA CTC for the greater of the following:

ALAMEDA CTC Share of the property’s Fair Market Value or the full amount of ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS used to acquire the property, as escalated by the increase in the CPI during the most recent period for which CPI data is available which is equal in length to the period between the date ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS were paid to PROJECT SPONSOR and the date reimbursement is made to ALAMEDA CTC. b. If any property is acquired for the PROJECT using ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS to finance some or all of the acquisition and only a portion of the acquired property is required for the PROJECT, and if the PROJECT begins construction within five (5) years after the effective date of this AGREEMENT (as such deadline may be extended by agreement between the parties hereto), then PROJECT SPONSOR shall, within one (1) year City Council/RSA Agenda 198 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 Alameda CTC Agreement No. A24-0011
Project No. 1423.001

Page 12 of 16 ends

2021 PFA Version
after PROJECT completion, reimburse ALAMEDA CTC for ALAMEDA CTC Share of the Fair Market Value of any property determined to be “excess property”. c. If the PROJECT begins construction within five (5) years after the effective date of this AGREEMENT (as such deadline may be extended by agreement between the parties hereto), then except as provided in subparagraph (d) below, no reimbursement is due with respect to any property interest acquired for the project using ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS if the entirety of the acquired property is required for the PROJECT. d. If PROJECT SPONSOR anticipates receiving net revenues (i.e., rental or other income generated by the property, less reasonable costs for insurance, maintenance and related items) from any property acquired using ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS, PROJECT SPONSOR shall notify ALAMEDA CTC on how PROJECT SPONSOR will use such revenue to offset other project costs, and document such revenue separately in project reimbursement requests.
e. If PROJECT is suspended, PROJECT SPONSOR shall pay all property management costs. f. Property that is required for the PROJECT and acquired wholly or in part with ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS shall be available for PROJECT construction within ten (10) years of ALAMEDA CTC reimbursement to the PROJECT SPONSOR. If, after ten (10) years, PROJECT has not been completed, PROJECT SPONSOR shall reimburse ALAMEDA CTC Share of the fair market value of the property, based on the net proceeds from the sale of the property or an appraisal of the property conducted at no cost to ALAMEDA CTC, within one (1) year after the expiration of this ten (10) year period.

16. If condemnation procedures are required to obtain possession to Right-of-Way, ALAMEDA CTC will consider the required deposit as an eligible cost and reimburse the PROJECT SPONSOR upon request.

PROJECT SPONSOR shall submit documentation of the final order of condemnation settlement within ninety (90) days after the date of the court recording of the final order of condemnation. If the amount of ALAMEDA CTC reimbursement to the PROJECT SPONSOR is higher than ALAMEDA CTC Share of the amount of settlement in the final order of condemnation, the PROJECT SPONSOR shall pay ALAMEDA CTC the difference between the amount reimbursed and ALAMEDA CTC Share of the amount settled plus ALAMEDA CTC Share of the interest accrued to the deposit account within one (1) year of the final order of condemnation.

17. PROJECT SPONSOR shall not initiate condemnation of any property until full funding for the construction of the PROJECT has been secured.

18. Reimbursement to PROJECT SPONSOR by ALAMEDA CTC for PROJECT Right-of-Way is limited to the following (and net of any relocation payments provided by other sources):
a. The cost to purchase all real property required for the PROJECT free and clear of liens and/or conflicting easements, including the costs for preparation of documents, negotiations and legal services.

City Council/RSA Agenda 199 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 Alameda CTC Agreement No. A24-0011
Project No. 1423.001

Page 13 of 16 ends

2021 PFA Version
b. The cost of damages to owners of the remainder of real property not actually taken but injuriously affected by PROJECT.
c. The cost of relocation payments and services provided to owners and occupants pursuant to the appropriate State laws and regulations when the PROJECT displaces an individual, family, business, farm operation or nonprofit organization. d. The cost of demolition and/or the sale of all improvements on the right-of-way. Proceeds from the sale of any such improvements shall be credited to the PROJECT and used to offset PROJECT costs.
e. The cost of all unavoidable utility relocation, protection or removal necessary for the completion of the PROJECT.
f. The cost of all necessary hazardous material and hazardous waste treatment, encapsulation or removal and protective storage for which PROJECT SPONSOR accepts responsibility and where the actual generator cannot be identified and recovery made.

19. If PROJECT SPONSOR materially breaches this AGREEMENT, including but not limited to failing to deliver the PROJECT within the schedule defined by this AGREEMENT without compelling reason, failing to file required progress reports in the time specified by this AGREEMENT, or failing to comply with applicable regulations, ALAMEDA CTC may either terminate this AGREEMENT or suspend payments to PROJECT SPONSOR until such time as PROJECT SPONSOR makes reasonable efforts to comply with this AGREEMENT.

20. Neither ALAMEDA CTC, nor its governing body or any officer, consultant, or employee thereof shall be responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by PROJECT SPONSOR in connection with the PROJECT. It is also understood and agreed, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, PROJECT SPONSOR shall fully defend, protect, indemnify and hold harmless ALAMEDA CTC, its governing body, and all its officers, employees, agents, representatives, and successors-ininterest, against any and all liability, loss, expense, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, or claims for injury (as defined in Government Code Section 810.8) or damages occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by PROJECT SPONSOR in connection with PROJECT, including the performance of the PROJECT or operation or use of the equipment that is subject to this AGREEMENT. If TFCA funds are obligated by this AGREEMENT, PROJECT SPONSOR shall also fully defend, protect, indemnify and hold harmless BAAQMD, its governing body, and all its officers, employees, agents, representatives, and successors-in-interest, from any liability imposed on BAAQMD for injury (as defined in Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by PROJECT SPONSOR in connection with PROJECT.

21. Neither PROJECT SPONSOR, nor its governing body or any officer, consultant, or employee thereof shall be responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by ALAMEDA CTC under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to ALAMEDA CTC under this AGREEMENT. It is also understood and agreed, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, ALAMEDA CTC shall fully defend, protect, indemnify and hold harmless PROJECT SPONSOR, City Council/RSA Agenda 200 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 Alameda CTC Agreement No. A24-0011
Project No. 1423.001

Page 14 of 16 ends

2021 PFA Version
its governing body, and all its officers, employees, agents, representatives, and successors-in-interest, against any and all liability, loss, expense, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, or claims for injury (as defined in Government Code Section 810.8) or damages occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by ALAMEDA CTC in connection with PROJECT, including the performance of the PROJECT or operation or use of the equipment that is subject to this AGREEMENT.

22. Nothing in the provisions of this AGREEMENT is intended to create duties or obligations to or rights in third parties not party to this AGREEMENT. This AGREEMENT gives no rights or benefits to anyone other than ALAMEDA CTC and PROJECT SPONSOR and has no third-party beneficiaries.

23. All legal actions by either party against the other arising from this AGREEMENT, or for the failure to perform in accordance with the applicable standard of care, or for any other cause of action, will be subject to the statutes of limitations of the State of California.

24. Should it become necessary to enforce the terms of this AGREEMENT, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees from the other party.

25. This AGREEMENT shall terminate upon the Agreement Expiration Date identified in Appendix B: Funds Obligated by this AGREEMENT unless this AGREEMENT is extended by mutual agreement of the parties. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Sections I.7, I.19, III.20 and III.21 shall survive the termination or expiration of this AGREEMENT.

26. This AGREEMENT, including its Recitals and Appendices, constitutes the entire AGREEMENT. This AGREEMENT may be changed only as allowed in Sections III.1 and Section III.2 of this AGREEMENT or by a written amendment executed by both parties. [Signatures on the next page]
City Council/RSA Agenda 201 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 Alameda CTC Agreement No. A24-0011
Project No. 1423.001

Page 15 of 16 ends

2021 PFA Version

CITY OF UNION CITY
(PROJECT SPONSOR)

ALAMEDA COUNTY

TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
(ALAMEDA CTC)
By: By:

Joan Malloy Date
City Manager
Tess Lengyel Date
Executive Director
Recommended
By:

Carolyn Clevenger Date
Deputy Executive Director of
Planning and Policy
Reviewed as to Budget/Financial Controls:

By:

Patricia Reavey Date
Deputy Executive Director of
Finance and Administration
Approved as to Legal Form: Approved as to Legal Form:

By: By:

Kristopher J. Kokotaylo Date
City Attorney

CITY OF UNION CITY
Fennemore Wendel Date
Legal Counsel to ALAMEDA CTC
Attested:

By: ___________________________________
Thai Nam N. Pham Date
City Clerk
City Council/RSA Agenda 202 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 Alameda CTC Agreement No. A24-0011
Project No. 1423.001

Page 16 of 16 ends

2021 PFA Version

LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: PROJECT CONTROL INFORMATION
Appendix A-1 Project Description
Appendix A-2 Project Scope Detail by Phase
Appendix A-3 Project Milestone Schedule
Appendix A-4 Project Responsibility Checklist
Appendix A-5 Project Funding Summary by Phase and Reimbursement Ratio Appendix A-6 Project Phase Cost Detail
APPENDIX B: ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS OBLIGATED BY THIS AGREEMENT APPENDIX C: ALAMEDA CTC REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS APPENDIX D: LOCAL BUSINESS CONTRACT EQUITY PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS [INTENTIONALLY OMITTED]
APPENDIX E: DELIVERABLES AND DUE DATES
APPENDIX F: PROJECT PERFORMANCE MEASURES
APPENDIX G: TRANSPORTATION FUND FOR CLEAN AIR POLICIES AND REQUIREMENTS [INTENTIONALLY OMITTED]
City Council/RSA Agenda 203 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 Alameda CTC Agreement No. A24-0011
Project No. 1423.001
Appendix A – Page 1

APPENDIX A

PROJECT CONTROL INFORMATION
Appendix Index
Appendix A-1 Project Description
Appendix A-2 Project Scope Detail by Phase
Appendix A-3 Project Milestone Schedule
Appendix A-4 Project Responsibility Checklist
Appendix A-5 Project Funding Summary by Phase and Reimbursement Ratio Appendix A-6 Project Phase Cost Detail
City Council/RSA Agenda 204 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 Alameda CTC Agreement No. A24-0011
Project No. 1423.001
Appendix A – Page 2
APPENDIX A-1

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project Description:

The Student Transit Pass Program (STPP) is administered by the Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC) and funded through Measure BB, a local sales tax measure dedicated to transportation. Alameda CTC is entering into this agreement with the City of Union City (Union City or PROJECT SPONSOR), operator of the Union City Transit bus system, to provide 5-year institutional pass products, which will provide unlimited free Union City Transit bus rides to eligible students at participating middle and high schools in the New Haven Unified School District.

During this program, Alameda CTC reserves the right to evaluate the process and make modifications to general program elements as agreed upon among the parties through subsequent amendments to this agreement.

This agreement covers program operations for three (3) years from Fiscal Year (FY) 23-24 through FY 25-26.

Details for the program are further defined in this funding agreement. Funding for subsequent years will be determined by the start of each fiscal year (e.g., by June 2026 for FY 26-27), and amended into the agreement.

Participating schools are listed in Table 1 of Appendix A-2.

City Council/RSA Agenda 205 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 Alameda CTC Agreement No. A24-0011
Project No. 1423.001
Appendix A – Page 3
APPENDIX A-2

PROJECT SCOPE DETAIL BY PHASE
The ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS obligated by this AGREEMENT are to support the project phase(s) identified and described below:

Task 1: Coordination with AC Transit for Clipper Card Creation and Management • Union City Transit staff will create an institutional pass product that will be used for participating schools in New Haven Unified School District. The institutional product will be valid for unlimited rides on Union City Transit buses during a five-year period. • Union City Transit agrees to allow designated AC Transit staff to collect applications from participating schools and load a Union City institutional pass product onto STPP Youth Clipper cards for these students.
• Participating schools will be responsible for distributing and collecting STPP Youth Clipper card applications. Upon receiving applications, designated school staff will verify date of birth, student ID number and enrollment of students at school by dating and initialing a designated spot on the application, and send applications to AC Transit. Table 1 below includes a list of participating schools in New Haven Unified School District.
• AC Transit will create Youth Clipper cards for students in New Haven Unified School District and load both an AC Transit and a Union City Transit institutional pass product onto these cards. • AC Transit, in collaboration with schools, will distribute cards to students along with appropriate collateral materials.
• AC Transit will create and maintain a master Clipper card database for all STPP enrolled students in participating districts and schools. Union City Transit will have access to this database as needed for reference purposes.
• For replacement cards, students, parents/caregivers or STPP school site administrators will call Clipper directly. Clipper will process replacement cards and mail them to students’ homes. • AC Transit will be the main point of contact for communications to/from individual school site administrators.

Deliverables:
• Union City Transit staff will create an institutional pass product valid for unlimited rides on Union City Transit buses during a five-year period.
• Union City Transit agrees to allow designated AC Transit staff to load a Union City institutional pass product onto STPP youth Clipper cards for eligible students.

Table 1: List of Participating Schools (as of June 2024) 1 District Program
Type City School School Type*
New
Haven
Unified
School
District
MeansBased &
Free
Union City
James Logan High School High School
Cesar Chavez Middle School Intermediate/Middle/Junior
High
Itliong-Vera Cruz Middle School Intermediate/Middle/Junior High
1 Note this list is subject to change.

City Council/RSA Agenda 206 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 Alameda CTC Agreement No. A24-0011
Project No. 1423.001
Appendix A – Page 4
District Program
Type City School School Type*
Decoto School for Independent
Study Elementary-High Combination
Hayward Conley-Caraballo High School High School
* For schools noted as K-8 or elementary, the STPP is only operating for grades 6-8.

Task 2: Data Reporting
Evaluation criteria for the program and data needed from Union City Transit for the evaluation metrics are shown in Table 2 below.
• Union City Transit will send the following report to Alameda CTC on a monthly basis, if feasible, and on a quarterly basis at minimum, by the 30th of the month following the end of the month(s) being reported:
o Number of students participating in program by month. • Union City Transit will send the following reports to Alameda CTC on a biannual basis (every six months):
o Transit Ridership and Capacity (total trips taken using student passes compared to overall ridership and total youth ridership (by year and trends); changes in boardings at stops by schools; route capacity before/after program implementation).

Table 2: STPP Evaluation Criteria
Evaluation Criteria Metrics Data Source
1 Participation
Number of students
participating in program by
month
Participation master list
2 Pass Usage Total number of rides taken
by month Clipper data; participation master list
3 Transit Ridership
and Capacity
Union City Transit total
ridership and total youth
ridership by month; changes
in ridership on routes near
schools; changes in boardings
at stops by schools; route
capacity before/after program
implementation
Transit agency ridership and capacity
data; Clipper data
Deliverables:
• Union City Transit will report on participation, and pass usage on at least a quarterly basis per parameters set forth in this task.
• Union City Transit will report on transit ridership and capacity on a biannual basis per parameters set forth in this task.

Task 3: Program Staffing
City Council/RSA Agenda 207 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 Alameda CTC Agreement No. A24-0011
Project No. 1423.001
Appendix A – Page 5
• Union City Transit will be responsible for coordinating with AC Transit, and Clipper/Cubic as necessary, to ensure Union City Transit institutional passes are provided to participating students in a timely manner.
• Union City Transit will be responsible for providing Clipper and transit agency data for program evaluation to Alameda CTC as described in more detail in Task 2. • Alameda CTC will pay Union City Transit for staff time that is required for direct implementation of the project. Staff costs cannot exceed 5% of total project costs on an annual basis. • AC Transit will be responsible for contracting with New Haven Unified School District. This contract allows designated district and/or school staff to be authorized to collect Youth Clipper card applications and verify date of birth for eligible students who chose to enroll. The contract includes appropriate privacy protection standards for the collection, handling, storage, and transmittal of student data.
• AC Transit will be responsible for all processes associated with daily management of the program including: creating and distributing cards; managing data associated with card replacements; ongoing card and database management.
• Alameda CTC is responsible for program oversight, management of expansion plan and phasing, program evaluation, funding, Safe Routes to Schools (SR2S) program coordination and travel training, assistance with school district coordination and communication. Consulting staff will be available through Alameda CTC to assist with program operations. • Schools will be responsible for program promotion, distribution and collection of Youth Clipper card applications from students, verification of date of birth and enrollment at school per district agreement, and transmittal of applications to AC Transit.

Deliverables:
• Union City Transit will be responsible for coordinating with AC Transit, and Clipper as necessary, to ensure smooth program delivery and deliver data to Alameda CTC as required in Task 2 in a timely manner.
• Union City Transit will keep track of and document staff hours associated with direct program implementation; staff costs will not exceed 5% of the total project costs on an annual basis.

Task 4: Operating Reserve
• Alameda CTC will establish an operating reserve to protect against sudden surges in ridership if it can be determined that they are directly caused by the STPP. • This will be a fund to be used for a short-term period only to allow Union City Transit to respond and reallocate service accordingly.
• The funding will only be released when certain thresholds are met, including:
o Specific overcrowding threshold will be determined in consultation with transit agency based on data that is available and will not include historic overcrowding. o Overcrowding issue is sustained over at least three months. • Impacts must be documented and proven to be attributable to the Student Transit Pass Program using route/stop ridership data and data from Alameda CTC-funded Student Transit Pass Youth Clipper cards.
• Service impacts must not be pre-existing or exogenous, such as services where agency is already experiencing overcrowding.
• Funding will sunset each year on June 30th.
• Transit agency must define approach to absorb new ridership into existing service capacity before May 31st of the school year.
• Funding must be approved by Alameda CTC Commission.

City Council/RSA Agenda 208 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 Alameda CTC Agreement No. A24-0011
Project No. 1423.001
Appendix A – Page 6
• Maximum of $20,000 has been reserved for Union City Transit per year.

Deliverables:
• Alameda CTC will establish an operating reserve of up to $20,000 per year for Union City Transit to protect against a sudden surge in ridership if it can be determined that it is directly caused by the STPP per above protocols.

Task 5: Transit Pass Payment
• Alameda CTC will pay Union City Transit for each ride taken using an STPP Youth Clipper card at the youth single ride price of $1.25 (as of January 1, 2019) or the actual cost of the youth single ride fare as of the time the ride is taken. Union City Transit will notify Alameda CTC in writing of any changes to the youth single ride fare.
• Alameda CTC will pay Union City Transit for staff time that directly related to project implementation. Staff costs will not exceed 5% of total annual project costs. Documentation must be provided for all staff time.
• Alameda CTC will pay Union City Transit for other direct costs directly related to project implementation, e.g. costs for shipping, data reports, printing if needed. Documentation must be provided for any direct expenses.
• Union City Transit can request use of the reserve fund per parameters outlined in Task 4. • Alameda CTC will reimburse eligible program costs per the Alameda CTC funds obligated by this agreement and reimbursement ratio defined in Appendix A-5 and Appendix A-6. STA funds are expected to be completely expended prior to Union City Transit being able to be reimbursed by Measure BB funds.

Deliverables
• Alameda CTC will pay for direct project implementation expenses including rides, staff time, and other direct expenses as outlined above.

City Council/RSA Agenda 209 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 Alameda CTC Agreement No. A24-0011
Project No. 1423.001
Appendix A – Page 7
APPENDIX A-3

PROJECT MILESTONE SCHEDULE
Phase/Milestone
Begin
(Mo/Yr)
End
(Mo/Yr)
Fiscal Year 23-24 Operations 7/2023 6/2024
Fiscal Year 24-25 Operations 7/2024 6/2025
Fiscal Year 25-26 Operations 7/2025 6/2026
Notes:

The Student Transit Pass Program is an ongoing program. The agreement currently only describes FY 2023-24 to FY 2025-26 of operations.

City Council/RSA Agenda 210 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 Alameda CTC Agreement No. A24-0011
Project No. 1423.001
Appendix A – Page 8
APPENDIX A-4

PROJECT RESPONSIBILITY CHECKLIST
No. Project Activity/Task Alameda CTC Sponsor
1 Coordination with AC Transit for Youth
Clipper Card Creation and Management S
2 Data Reporting S
3 Program Staffing S
4 Operating Reserve S
5 Transit Pass Payment S
Legend
S = Staff
S/C = Staff/Consultant
City Council/RSA Agenda 211 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 Alameda CTC Agreement No. A24-0011
Project No. 1423.001
Appendix A – Page 9
APPENDIX A-5

PROJECT FUNDING SUMMARY BY PHASE AND REIMBURSEMENT RATIO (Only Phases Funded with Alameda CTC Administered Funds) The ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS obligated by this AGREEMENT are to support the project phase(s) identified and described below:

PROJECT FUNDING SUMMARY BY PHASE AND REIMBURSEMENT RATIO PHASE
Alameda CTC
Administered
Funds
State Transit
Assistance
(STA Funds)1
Total
Funding
Reimbursement
Ratio
2014 Measure BB Percentage
TEP-08
Fiscal Year 23-24
Operations - $115,000 $115,000 N/A
Fiscal Year 23-24
Operations $100,000 - $100,000 100%
Fiscal Year 23-24
Operating Reserve2
$20,000 - $20,000 100%
Fiscal Year 24-25
Operations - $115,000 $115,000 N/A
Fiscal Year 24-25
Operations $125,000 - $125,000 100%
Fiscal Year 24-25
Operating Reserve2
$20,000 - $20,000 100%
Fiscal Year 25-26
Operations - $115,000 $115,000 N/A
Fiscal Year 25-26
Operations $150,000 - $150,000 100%
Fiscal Year 25-26
Operating Reserve2
$20,000 - $20,000 100%
Total Funding $435,000 $345,000 $780,000
Notes:
• PROJECT SPONSOR shall use STA Funds dedicated to the program in its totality, prior to being eligible for Measure BB reimbursement. STA funding currently reflects estimated STA amounts as approved at the April 27, 2023 Commission meeting. Final STA figures will be provided to transit operators when made available through the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Union City Transit is required to provide complete progress and invoice reporting of STA funds to Alameda CTC to document the use of STA funds; this will confirm eligibility to begin reimbursement of Measure BB funds. • Operating Reserve is only eligible for reimbursement per the requirements described in Appendix A-2, Task 4.

City Council/RSA Agenda 212 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 Alameda CTC Agreement No. A24-0011
Project No. 1423.001
Appendix A – Page 10
APPENDIX A-6

PROJECT PHASE COST DETAIL
This Project Phase Cost Detail summarizes the total cost for each phase with ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS obligated in this AGREEMENT.

PHASE COST DETAIL
Fiscal Years 23-24, 24-25, 25-26 Operations Total Cost
Program Costs
Sponsor Staff/Labor Cost $27,000
Other Direct Costs $5,400
Rides $687,600
Operating Reserve (FYs 23-24, 24-25, 25-26) $60,000
Total Program Cost $780,000
Special Considerations:
• STA funding is solely eligible towards supporting the cost per ride. It is not eligible to be used for other program costs such as administration, direct costs, or program management.

City Council/RSA Agenda 213 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 Alameda CTC Agreement No. A24-0011
Project No. 1423.001
Appendix C – Page 1

APPENDIX B

ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS OBLIGATED BY THIS AGREEMENT The following Table B-1 identifies the ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS obligated by this AGREEMENT and establishes a unique allowable start date for each obligated fund source.

FUNDS OBLIGATED BY THIS AGREEMENT

AND ALLOWABLE START AND EXPENDITURE DEADLINE DATES
Fund
Source
Fund
Subset Phase
Commission
Approval
Date
Allowable
Start Date
Expenditure
Deadline
Date
Obligated
Amount
2014
Measure BB TEP-08 Operations 6/27/2019 7/1/2023
The Agreement
Expiration Date
serves as the
expenditure deadline
date.
$435,000
Total Alameda CTC Administered Funds Obligated by AGREEMENT: $435,000 Agreement Expiration Date: June 30, 2026
Notes:

1. ALAMEDA CTC shall endeavor to transmit payments to PROJECT SPONSOR following a receipt and approval of a Request for Reimbursement(s) by the PROJECT SPONSOR.

2. Measure BB funds were allocated through a Commission action on 6/27/2019.

3. ALAMEDA CTC reimbursement amounts by fund source for PROJECT shall not exceed the total amount obligated by this AGREEMENT, by fund source.

4. The Commission Approval Date is the date of the meeting at which the Commission approved the allocation.

5. The Allowable Start Date identified for each fund source is the earliest date at which costs eligible for reimbursement by the fund source indicated may be incurred. Any costs incurred on the PROJECT before this date will not be eligible for reimbursement under this AGREEMENT. The earliest Allowable Start Date shown in this column represents the effective date of this AGREEMENT.

6. The Expenditure Deadline Date is the last date by which eligible reimbursable costs may be incurred. Any costs incurred on the PROJECT after this date will not be eligible for reimbursement under this AGREEMENT.

7. The Agreement Expiration Date shall mean and refer to the expiration date of this AGREEMENT.

City Council/RSA Agenda 214 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 Alameda CTC Agreement No. A24-0011
Project No. 1423.001
Appendix C – Page 2

APPENDIX C

REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
The below table establishes the required minimum frequency for Requests for Reimbursement and Progress Reports.

Requests for Reimbursements and Progress Reports are required either monthly, quarterly, or semi-annually, as indicated below with an “X”.

REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT AND PROGRESS REPORTING

FREQUENCY AND DUE DATES
Frequency
Required
(as checked)
Minimum Frequency Period Covered Due Dates
☐
Monthly
(once every month)
One month By 30 days following the end
of billed activity
☒
Quarterly
(once every 3 months)
Quarter 1: 7/1– 9/30
Quarter 2: 10/1 – 12/31
Quarter 3: 1/1– 3/31
Quarter 4: 4/1– 6/30
By October 31st
By January 31st
By April 30th
By July 31st
☐
Semi-annually
(once every 6 months)
Quarters 1 & 2: 7/1 – 12/31
Quarters 3 & 4: 1/1 – 6/30
By January 31st
By July 31st
☐
Annually
(TFCA Annual Report)
Fiscal Year: 7/1 – 6/30 By July 31st
☒
Final Request for
Reimbursement
Any work period eligible
under Appendix B.

Must be submitted prior to the
Agreement Expiration Date
Notes:

1. For all projects, the maximum frequency for Requests for Reimbursement is one (1) per month.

2. If no costs were incurred during the reporting period, a progress report for the corresponding period is still required.

3. TFCA funding requires annual reporting to BAAQMD in addition to the minimum required frequency for Alameda CTC progress reports and invoices.

4. Requests for Reimbursement must be submitted prior to the Agreement Expiration Date in order to be eligible for reimbursement.

REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT AND REPORTING FORMS
Any PROJECT SPONSOR awarded ALAMEDA CTC Administered Funds shall use the following forms included in the link below for progress reporting, final reporting, request for reimbursements, and requests for amendments to this funding agreement. Note that the format and required content of these forms is subject to change.

List of Downloadable Forms: https://www.alamedactc.org/funding/reporting-and-grant-forms/

1. Request for Reimbursement (RFR) Form

2. Alameda CTC Progress Report Form

3. Alameda CTC Final Report Form

4. Transportation Fund for Clean Air Program Reporting Forms (Interim and Final Report)

5. Amendment Request Form
City Council/RSA Agenda 215 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 Alameda CTC Agreement No. A24-0011
Project No. 1423.001
Appendix D – Page 1

APPENDIX D

LOCAL BUSINESS CONTRACT EQUITY PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
[INTENTIONALLY OMITTED]
Due to the nature of the PROJECT implemented through this AGREEMENT, Alameda CTC’s Local Business Contract Equity Program is not applicable to this contract.

City Council/RSA Agenda 216 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 Alameda CTC Agreement No. A24-0011
Project No. 1423.001
Appendix E - Page 1

APPENDIX E

DELIVERABLES AND DUE DATES
Project Deliverables and Due Dates: The Deliverables and Due Dates table below shows deliverables and due dates, if any, for the phases listed in Appendix A-2 Project Phase Descriptions that contain ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS.

Deliverables and Due Dates
No. Description Due Date to
Alameda CTC
1 Progress Report #1: July to September, 2023 October 31, 2023 2 Progress Report #2: October to December, 2023 January 31, 2024 3 Progress Report #3: January to March, 2024 April 30, 2024 4 Progress Report #4: April to June, 2024 July 31, 2024 5 Progress Report #5: July to September, 2024 October 31, 2024 6 Progress Report #6: October to December, 2024 January 31, 2025 7 Progress Report #7: January to March, 2025 April 30, 2025 8 Progress Report #8: April to June, 2025 July 31, 2025 9 Progress Report #9: July to September, 2025 October 31, 2025 10 Progress Report #10: October to December, 2025 January 31, 2026 11 Progress Report #11: January to March, 2026 April 30, 2026 12 Progress Report #12: April to June, 2026 July 31, 2026 13 Task Deliverables as described in Appendix A-2 shall be provided as required and/or requested by Alameda CTC
Ongoing
14 Final Invoice 60 days prior to, but no
later than, the Agreement
Expiration Date
15 Alameda CTC Final Report By the Agreement
Expiration Date
Notes:

1. Per Section III.19 of AGREEMENT, Alameda CTC may withhold payment of reimbursement requests until past due deliverables are received and approved.

2. See APPENDIX C to access the applicable reporting forms.

City Council/RSA Agenda 217 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 Alameda CTC Agreement No. A24-0011
Project No. 1423.001
Appendix F – Page 1

APPENDIX F

PROJECT PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Project Performance Measures: The Project Performance Measures and Targets describes what outcomebased performance measure(s) the PROJECT SPONSOR plans to evaluate to ensure that the project/program is meeting its objectives.

Project Performance Outcome
The Student Transit Pass Program (STPP) is administered by the Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC) and partially funded through Measure BB, a local sales tax measure dedicated to transportation. Alameda CTC is entering into an agreement with the City of Union City, operator of the Union City Transit bus system, to provide Youth Clipper cards loaded with a 5-year institutional pass product, which will provide unlimited free Union City Transit rides to eligible students at participating middle and high schools.

Note:

1. Improvements are expected to achieve, as best as possible, the performance measures targets and/or project outcomes as established herein.

City Council/RSA Agenda 218 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 Alameda CTC Agreement No. A24-0011
Project No. 1423.001
Appendix G – Page 1

APPENDIX G

TRANSPORTATION FUND FOR CLEAN AIR POLICIES AND REQUIREMENTS [INTENTIONALLY OMITTED]
The contents of Appendix G are only included and attached to this AGREEMENT if TFCA funds are obligated and applicable to AGREEMENT. No TFCA funds are obligated to this agreement.

City Council/RSA Agenda 219 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 Agenda Item
DATE: 9/24/2024
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JACKIE ACOSTA, FINANCE DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION RECEIVING AND ACCEPTING THE AUDITED FINANCIAL

STATEMENTS OF THE MEASURE B FUND, THE MEASURE BB FUND, THE MEASURE F FUND, AND THE TDA FUND FOR THE FISCALYEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2023 Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution receiving and accepting the audited financial statements of the Measure B Fund, the Measure BB Fund, the Measure F Fund, and the TDA Fund for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
The agenda item does not have alignment with the Strategic Plan.

BACKGROUND
The City is required to have an annual independent audit of the financial activity of the City and issue audited financial statements known as the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR). Additionally, the Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) requires the City to issue separate audited financial statements on the use of Measure B, Measure BB and Measure F funds received from ACTC and the State Controller’s Office (SCO) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) require the City to issue a separate audited financial statement on the use of Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds. Staff and the City’s independent certified public accountants, Badawi & Associates, are still working on the completion of the ACFR, but have completed the separate audited financial statements of the Measure B, the Measure BB, the Measure F and the TDA Funds.

DISCUSSION
Since the cyberattack in September 2019, the City has been behind in closing its books and issuing its Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports (ACFR). Staff and the auditors are in the process of completing the ACFR for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023, but have already completed the separate audited financial statements of the Measure B, the Measure BB, the Measure F and the TDA Funds, attached to the resolution as Exhibits A, B, C and D, respectively. The separate audited financial statements of the City Council/RSA Agenda 220 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 Measure B Fund (one-half-cent transportation sales tax approved in 1986 and renewed in 2000), the Measure BB Fund (one-halfcent transportation sales tax approved in November 2014), and the Measure F Fund ($10 per year vehicle registration fee (VRF) approved in November 2010) are ready to be submitted to the ACTC. The ACTC requires these separate audited financial statements to confirm that the City is using Measure B, Measure BB and Measure F funding appropriately and to allow for the City’s continued receipt of these critical funds.

The separate audited financial statement of the TDA Fund (the Transportation Development Act of 1971) is ready to be submitted to the SCO and the MTC. The SCO and the MTC require this separate audited financial statement to ensure program compliance.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact as a result of receiving and accepting these reports.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution receiving and accepting the audited financial statements of the Measure B Fund, the Measure BB Fund, the Measure F Fund, and the TDA Fund for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023.

Prepared by:

Jackie Acosta, Finance Director
Submitted by:

Jackie Acosta, Finance Director
ATTACHMENTS:

Description Type
Draft Resolution Resolution
Exhibit A - 2022-2023 Measure BFinancial Statements Exhibit Exhibit B- 2022-2023 Measure BBFinancial Statements Exhibit Exhibit C- 2022-2023 Measure F Financial Statements Exhibit Exhibit D- 2022-2023 TDA Financial Statements Exhibit
City Council/RSA Agenda 221 Tuesday, September 24, 2024

Page 1 of 2 ends

RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-24

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF UNION CITY RECEIVING AND ACCEPTING THE

AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE MEASURE

B FUND, THE MEASURE BB FUND, THE MEASURE F

FUND, AND THE TDA FUND FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
ENDED JUNE 30, 2023
WHEREAS, the City is required to have an annual independent audit of the financial activity of the City and issue audited financial statements known as the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR); and
WHEREAS, the Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) requires the City to issue separate audited financial statements on the use of Measure B, Measure BB and Measure F funds received from ACTC, and the State Controller’s Office (SCO) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) require the City to issue a separate audited financial statement on the use of Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds; and WHEREAS, staff and the City's independent certified public accountants, Badawi & Associates, are still working on the completion of the ACFR but have completed the separate audited financial statements of Measure B, Measure BB, Measure F, and the TDA Funds; and WHEREAS, the separate audited financial statements of the Measure B Fund (one-halfcent transportation sales tax approved in 1986 and renewed in 2000), the Measure BB Fund (onehalf-cent transportation sales tax approved in November 2014), and the Measure F Fund ($10 per year vehicle registration fee (VRF) approved in November 2010) are ready to be submitted to the ACTC; and
WHEREAS, the ACTC requires these separate audited financial statements to confirm that the City is using Measure B, Measure BB and Measure F funding appropriately and to allow for the City's continued receipt of these critical funds; and WHEREAS, the separate audited financial statement of the TDA Fund (the Transportation Development Act of 1971) is ready to be submitted to the SCO and the MTC; and WHEREAS, the SCO and the MTC require this separate audited financial statement to ensure program compliance; and
WHEREAS, the aforementioned separate audited financial statements have been reviewed and considered by the City Council of the City of Union City and are attached hereto as Exhibits A, B, C, and D, respectively.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Union City hereby receives and accepts the audited financial statement of the Measure B Fund, the Measure BB Fund, the Measure F Fund, and the TDA Fund for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023.

City Council/RSA Agenda 222 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 Resolution No. XXXX-24
Accepting Audited Financial Statements of FY 2023 Measure B, Measure BB, Measure F, and TDA Fund

Page 2 of 2 ends

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Union City at a regular meeting held on this 24
th day of September 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:

CAROL DUTRA-VERNACI
Mayor
ATTESTED: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

THAI NAM N. PHAM
City Clerk
KRISTOPHER J. KOKOTAYLO
City Attorney
Attachments:

1. Exhibit A – 2022-2023 Measure B Financial Statements

2. Exhibit B – 2022-2023 Measure BB Financial Statements

3. Exhibit C – 2022-2023 Measure F Financial Statements

4. Exhibit D – 2022-2023 TDA Financial Statements
City Council/RSA Agenda 223 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 City of Union City
Measure B Funds
Union City, California
Financial Statements and
Independent Auditor’s Reports
For the year ended June 30, 2023
Exhibit A
City Council/RSA Agenda 224 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 City of Union City
Alameda County Transportation Commission – Measure B Funds For the year ended June 30, 2023
Table of Contents
Page
Independent Auditor’s Report .................................................................................................................................1 Financial Statements:

Balance Sheets ........................................................................................................................................................5 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and
Changes in Fund Balances .............................................................................................................................6 Notes to Financial Statements..............................................................................................................................7 Supplementary Information:

Budgetary Basis of Accounting:

Budgetary Control and Budgetary Accounting............................................................................................14 Budgetary Comparison Schedule, ACTC Streets & Roads Special Revenue Fund.................................15 Budgetary Comparison Schedule, ACTC Bike & Pedestrian Special Revenue Fund.............................16 Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards...............................................................17 Report on Measure B Compliance..........................................................................................................................19 City Council/RSA Agenda 225 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
of the City of Union City
Union City, California
Report on the Audit of the Financial Statements
Opinions
We have audited the financial statements of the Measure B Funds (Measure B Funds) of the City of Union City, California (City), as of and for the year ended June 30, 2023, and the related notes to the financial statements as listed in the table of contents.

In our opinion, the accompanying financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position of the Measure B Funds of the City, as of June 30, 2023, and the respective changes in financial position, and cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Basis for Opinions
We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAS) and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Our responsibilities under those standards are further described in the Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements section of our report. We are required to be independent of the Measure B Funds of the City and to meet our other ethical responsibilities, in accordance with the relevant ethical requirements relating to our audit.

We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinions.

Emphasis of Matter
As discussed in Note 1, the financial statements present only the Measure B Funds and do not purport to, and do not, present fairly the financial position of the City, as of June 30, 2023, or the changes in financial position or cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Our opinion is not modified with respect to this matter. 1 City Council/RSA Agenda 226 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
of the City of Union City
Union City, California

Page 2 ends

Responsibilities of Management for the Financial Statements The City’s management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, and for the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.

In preparing the financial statements, management is required to evaluate whether there are conditions or events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about the Measure B Funds’ ability to continue as a going concern for twelve months beyond the financial statement date, including any currently known information that may raise substantial doubt shortly thereafter.

Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements Our objectives are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements as a whole are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error, and to issue an auditor’s report that includes our opinions. Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance but is not absolute assurance and therefore is not a guarantee that an audit conducted in accordance with GAAS will always detect a material misstatement when it exists. The risk of not detecting a material misstatement resulting from fraud is higher than for one resulting from error, as fraud may involve collusion, forgery, intentional omissions, misrepresentations, or the override of internal control. Misstatements are considered material if there is a substantial likelihood that, individually or in the aggregate, they would influence the judgment made by a reasonable user based on the financial statements.

In performing an audit in accordance with GAAS, we:
 Exercise professional judgment and maintain professional skepticism throughout the audit.  Identify and assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error, and design and perform audit procedures responsive to those risks. Such procedures include examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.
 Obtain an understanding of internal control relevant to the audit in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Measure B Funds’ internal control. Accordingly, no such opinion is expressed.  Evaluate the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluate the overall presentation of the financial statements.
 Conclude whether, in our judgment, there are conditions or events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about the Measure B Funds’ ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time.

We are required to communicate with those charged with governance regarding, among other matters, the planned scope and timing of the audit, significant audit findings, and certain internal control–related matters that we identified during the audit.
2 City Council/RSA Agenda 227 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
of the City of Union City
Union City, California

Page 3 ends

Supplementary Information
Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that collectively comprise the Measure B Funds’ financial statements. The budgetary comparison information is presented for purposes of additional analysis and is not a required part of the financial statements.

The budgetary comparison information is the responsibility of management and was derived from and relates directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the financial statements.

Such information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the financial statements and certain additional procedures, including comparing and reconciling such information directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the financial statements or to the financial statements themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. In our opinion, budgetary information is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the financial statements as a whole.

Other Reporting Required by Government Auditing Standards In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated September 19, 2024 on our consideration of the City’s internal control over financial reporting and on our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements and other matters. The purpose of that report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the City’s internal control over financial reporting and compliance.

Badawi and Associates
Berkeley, California
September 19, 2024
3 City Council/RSA Agenda 228 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 This page intentionally left blank
4 City Council/RSA Agenda 229 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 City of Union City
Alameda County Transportation Commission - Measure B Funds Balance Sheets
June 30, 2023
Bike &
Streets & Pedestrian
Roads Paths Total
ASSETS
Cash and investments $ 471,933 $ 936,389 $ 1,408,322
Total assets 471,933 936,389 1,408,322

LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE
Liabilities
Accounts payable 70,247 - 70,247
Other accrued liabilities 10,443 - 10,443
Total liabilities 80,690 - 80,690
Fund balance
Fund balance:

Restricted for street maintenance
& improvements 391,243 936,389 1,327,632
Total restricted 391,243 936,389 1,327,632
Total fund balance 391,243 936,389 1,327,632
Total liabilities and fund balance $ 471,933 $ 936,389 $ 1,408,322 See accompanying notes to the financial statements
Special Revenue Funds
5 City Council/RSA Agenda 230 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 City of Union City
Alameda County Transportation Commission - Measure B Funds Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances For the year ended June 30, 2023
Bike &
Streets & Pedestrian
Roads Paths Total
REVENUES:

Direct Local Program Distribution Allocation $ - $ - $ - Investment income 16,678 16,761 33,439
Total revenues 16,678 16,761 33,439
EXPENDITURES:

Public works 1,377,820 21,530 1,399,350
Total expenditures 1,377,820 21,530 1,399,350
REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES (1,361,142) (4,769) (1,365,911) FUND BALANCES:

Beginning of year 1,752,385 941,158 2,693,543
End of year $ 391,243 $ 936,389 $ 1,327,632
See accompanying notes to the financial statements
Special Revenue Funds
6 City Council/RSA Agenda 231 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 City of Union City
Alameda County Transportation Commission – Measure B Funds Notes to Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2023

1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
A. Reporting Entity
All transactions of the Alameda County Transportation Commission Measure B Funds (Measure B Funds) of the City of Union City, California (City), are included as separate special revenue funds in the basic financial statements of the City. Measure B Funds are used to account for the City’s share of revenues earned and expenditures incurred under the City’s streets and roads, bike and pedestrian, transit, and paratransit programs. The accompanying financial statements are for Measure B Funds only and are not intended to fairly present the financial position or results of operations of the City.

Measure B Paratransit and Transit monies were fully expended as of June 30, 2022.

B. Basis of Accounting
Governmental Fund Financial Statements
The accompanying financial statements of the special revenue funds are prepared on the modified accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are generally recorded when measurable and available, and expenditures are recorded when the related liabilities are incurred.

The accounting and financial reporting treatment applied to a fund is determined by its measurement focus. All governmental funds are accounted for using a “current financial resources” measurement focus, wherein only current assets and current liabilities generally are included on the balance sheets.

Operating statements of governmental funds present increases (revenues and other financing sources) and decreases (expenditures and other financing uses) in fund balance.

C. Fund Accounting
The accounts are maintained on the basis of fund accounting. A fund is a separate accounting entity with a self-balancing set of accounts.

The following funds are used:

Special Revenue Fund – To account for the proceeds of specific revenues (other than for capital projects) that are legally restricted to be expended for specified purposes. 7 City Council/RSA Agenda 232 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 City of Union City
Alameda County Transportation Commission – Measure B Funds Notes to Financial Statements, Continued
For the year ended June 30, 2023

1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES, CONTINUED D. Fund Balance
Fund balances of governmental funds are classified in one of five categories:

Nonspendable Fund Balance – Represents that portion of fund balance that includes amounts that are either 1) not in a spendable form; or 2) legally or contractually required to be maintained intact.

Amounts considered “not in a spendable form” include items that are not expected to be converted to cash, such as prepaid items and long-term notes receivable.

Restricted Fund Balance – Represents that portion of fund balance that reflects constraints placed on the use of resources (other than nonspendable items) that are either 1) externally imposed by creditors, such as through debt covenants, grantors, contributors, or the laws and regulations of other governments; or 2) imposed by law through constitutional provisions or enabling legislation.

These restrictions may be effectively changed only with the consent of the resource provider.

Committed Fund Balance – Represents that portion of fund balance that includes amounts that can only be used for specific purposes pursuant to constraints imposed by formal action of the City Council, the City government’s highest-level decision-making authority. In order for funds to be considered committed, an ordinance must be introduced at a City Council meeting describing the proposed action. The ordinance must be published in the City’s official newspaper of publication within 15 days of adoption. Ordinances are then codified in the City’s municipal code. Those funds collected and expended for specific purposes defined in the City’s municipal code are reported as committed fund balances. The established constraints remain binding until the City Council takes action to amend the applicable section of the municipal code.

Assigned Fund Balance – Represents that portion of fund balance that includes amounts that are constrained by the City’s intended use of the resources but are neither restricted nor committed.

Such intent needs to be established at the highest level of decision making or by an official designated for that purpose. The City Council has given the City Manager the authority to assign amounts to be used for specific purposes.

Unassigned Fund Balance – Represents that portion of fund balance that includes amounts that are not contained in any of the other fund balance categories. The General Fund is the only governmental fund that may report a positive amount as unassigned fund balance. For all other governmental funds, only negative balances may be reported as unassigned fund balance.

In circumstances when an expenditure is made for a purpose for which amounts are available in multiple fund balance classifications, fund balance is generally depleted in the order of restricted, committed, assigned, and then unassigned.
8 City Council/RSA Agenda 233 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 City of Union City
Alameda County Transportation Commission – Measure B Funds Notes to Financial Statements, Continued
For the year ended June 30, 2023

1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES, CONTINUED E. Use of Estimates
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenditures during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

2. MEASURE B FUNDS
Under Measure B, approved by the voters of Alameda County in 1986 (ACTA “Old” Measure B) and in 2000 (ACTIA Measure B), the City receives a portion of the proceeds of an additional one-half cent sales tax to be used for transportation-related purposes. This Measure was adopted with the intent that the funds generated by the additional sales tax will not fund expenditures previously paid for by property taxes but rather would be used for additional projects and programs.

Major projects funded by Measure B were as follows:

Streets and Roads Program – To provide funding for citywide overlay and slurry seal projects, paving maintenance, and installation of new traffic signals.

Bike and Pedestrian Program – To help fund construction of new sidewalks, citywide trail system rehabilitation, and intersection improvements.

3. CASH AND INVESTMENTS
Measure B Funds are to be pooled with the City’s cash and investments in order to generate optimum investment income. The City pools its available cash for investment purposes. The City’s cash and cash equivalents are considered to be cash on hand, demand deposits, and short-term investments with original maturity of three months or less from date of acquisition. Cash and cash equivalents are combined with investments and displayed as cash and investments. Investment income is allocated quarterly to funds based on their proportionate share of average quarterly cash balances.

Amounts reported as unrealized gain/(loss) in market value of investments are made in accordance with Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 31, which states all investment income, including changes in the fair value of investments, should be recognized as revenue in the operating statement.

Measure B Funds had the following cash and investments at June 30, 2023:

Cash and investments $1,408,322
9 City Council/RSA Agenda 234 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 City of Union City
Alameda County Transportation Commission – Measure B Funds Notes to Financial Statements, Continued
For the year ended June 30, 2023

3. CASH AND INVESTMENTS, CONTINUED
A. Investments
Under the provisions of the City’s investment policy, and in accordance with California Government Code, the following investments are authorized:

Maximum
Maximum Minimum Credit Percentage of
Authorized Investment Type Maturity Quality Portfolio
Municipal Bonds and Obligations 5 years A 30%
U.S. Treasury Obligations 5 years None No Limit
Federal Agency Obligations 5 years None No Limit
State of California Bonds and
Obligations 5 years None No Limit
Banker Acceptances 180 days A1 40%
Commercial Paper 270 days A-1 25%
Negotiable Certificates of Deposit 5 years None 30%
All Other Bank/Time Deposits 5 years None No Limit
Repurchase Agreements 1 year None No Limit
Reverse Repurchase Agreements and
Securities Lending Agreements 92 days None 20%
Medium-Term and Corporate Notes 5 years A 30%
Mutual Funds N/A Multiple 20%
Money Market Mutual Funds N/A Multiple 20%
Collateralized Bank Deposits 5 years None No Limit
Mortgage Pass-Through and AssetBacked Securities 5 years AA 20% Local Government Investment Pools N/A None No Limit
State of California Local Agency
Investment Fund (LAIF) N/A None No Limit
In accordance with GASB Statement No. 31, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Certain Investments and for External Investment Pools, investments were stated at fair value using the aggregate method in all funds and component units. The City’s investments are carried at fair market value as required by generally accepted accounting principles. The City accounts for all changes in fair value that occurred during the year and these changes are reflected in the fund balance or net position for the fiscal year.

These investment value changes are unrealized since the City’s policy is to buy and hold investments until maturity dates.
10 City Council/RSA Agenda 235 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 City of Union City
Alameda County Transportation Commission – Measure B Funds Notes to Financial Statements, Continued
For the year ended June 30, 2023

3. CASH AND INVESTMENTS, CONTINUED
B. Risk Disclosures
Interest Risk – Interest risk is the fluctuation in the fair value of investments due to changes in interest rates. The City’s exposure to losses caused by rising interest rates is minimized by limiting the average maturity of the City’s investments to not exceed five years.

Credit Risk – Credit risk is the risk of loss of value of a security or investment due to downgrade of its rating due to a change in the ability of the issuer to fulfill its debt obligations. With the exception of U.S. Treasury securities and authorized pools, no more than 50% of the City’s total investment portfolio will be invested in a single security type or with a single financial institution to reduce the City’s exposure to credit risks.

Custodial Credit Risk – The custodial credit risk for investments is the risk that in the event of the failure of a counterparty, the investor will not be able to recover the value of its investments or collateral securities that are in possession of an outside party. None of the City’s investments were subject to custodial credit risk.

C. Local Agency Investment Fund
The City is a voluntary participant in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) that is regulated by California Government Code Section 16429 under the oversight of the Treasurer of the State of California. The balance is available for withdrawal on demand. The City’s investments with LAIF at June 30, 2023, include a portion of the pool funds invested in structured notes and asset-backed securities. These investments include the following:

Structured Notes - Debt securities (other than asset-backed securities) whose cash flow characteristics (coupon rate, redemption amount, or stated maturity) depend upon one or more indices and/or that have embedded forwards or options.

Asset-Backed Securities – Securities, the bulk of which are mortgage-backed securities, that entitle their purchasers to receive a share of the cash flows from a pool of assets, such as principal and interest repayments from a pool of mortgages (e.g., collateralized mortgage obligations) or credit card receivables.

As of June 30, 2023, the City invested in LAIF, which had invested 2.78% of the pool investments in structured notes and asset-backed securities compared to 1.88% in the previous year. The City reports its investment in LAIF at the fair value amount provided by LAIF, which is the same as the value of the pool share. The fair value of LAIF was calculated by applying a factor of 0.984828499 to the total investments held by LAIF.
11 City Council/RSA Agenda 236 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 City of Union City
Alameda County Transportation Commission – Measure B Funds Notes to Financial Statements, Continued
For the year ended June 30, 2023

4. INTERGOVERNMENTAL RECEIVABLES
Intergovernmental receivables represent the Measure B sales tax revenues for the fiscal year received from the Alameda County Transportation Commission after June 30, 2023.

5. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
The City participates in several grant programs. These programs are subject to further examination by the grantors and the amount, if any, of expenditures which may be disallowed by the granting agencies cannot be determined at this time. The City expects such amounts, if any, to be immaterial. 12 City Council/RSA Agenda 237 Tuesday, September 24, 2024

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
13 City Council/RSA Agenda 238 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 City of Union City
Alameda County Transportation Commission – Measure B Funds Supplementary Information
For the year ended June 30, 2023

1. BUDGETARY BASIS OF ACCOUNTING
A. Budgetary Control and Budgetary Accounting
The City Council adopts a two-year operating budget for the General Fund, Special Revenue funds, and Debt Service funds, with each year of the budget document independent of the other. The operating budget is effective July 1 and lapses the following June 30. Budgets are adopted on a basis consistent with generally accepted accounting principles. The budget is controlled at the department level in the General Fund and at the fund level for all other funds. The City’s five-year capital improvement plan serves as the basis for the capital project budgets. Appropriations for Capital Project funds are approved at the same time operating budgets are adopted. These appropriations are made in the fiscal year the capital project is scheduled to commence and are effective for the life of the project.

Amendments to capital budgets may be approved by Council at any time during the project’s life. As a result, budget-to-actual schedules are not presented.

Transfers between funds must be approved by the City Council. There were certain amendments made to the budget during the year for changes in employee compensation plans and to address variances between the original budget and actual activities. These adjustments are reflected in the final budget information presented in the comparison schedules.

Under encumbrance accounting, purchase orders, contracts, and other commitments for the expenditures of monies are recorded in order to reserve that portion of the applicable appropriation.

Encumbrance accounting is employed as an extension of the formal budgetary process. Encumbrances outstanding at year-end are carried forward to the following fiscal year and are re-appropriated by City Council resolution.
14 City Council/RSA Agenda 239 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 City of Union City
Alameda County Transportation Commission - Measure B Funds Supplementary Information, Continued
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances - Budget and Actual ACTC Streets & Roads Special Revenue Fund
For the year ended June 30, 2023
Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Positive
Original Final Amounts (Negative)
REVENUES:

Direct Local Program Distribution Allocation $ - $ - $ - $ - Investment income - - 16,678 16,678
Total revenues - - 16,678 16,678
EXPENDITURES:

Current:

Public works - 1,420,284 1,377,820 42,464
Capital outlay - 4,625 - 4,625
Total expenditures - 1,424,909 1,377,820 47,089
REVENUE OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES - (1,424,909) (1,361,142) 63,767 Net change in fund balance $ - $ (1,424,909) (1,361,142) $ 63,767 FUND BALANCES:

Beginning of year 1,752,385
End of year $ 391,243
Budgeted Amounts
15 City Council/RSA Agenda 240 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 City of Union City
Alameda County Transportation Commission - Measure B Funds Supplementary Information, Continued
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances - Budget and Actual ACTC Bike & Pedestrian Paths Special Revenue Fund
For the year ended June 30, 2023
Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Positive
Original Final Amounts (Negative)
REVENUES:

Direct Local Program Distribution Allocation $ - $ - $ - $ - Investment income - - 16,761 16,761
Total revenues - - 16,761 16,761
EXPENDITURES:

Current:

Public works - 404,601 21,530 383,071
Total expenditures - 404,601 21,530 383,071
REVENUE OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES - (404,601) (4,769) 399,832 Net change in fund balance $ - $ (404,601) (4,769) $ 399,832 FUND BALANCES:

Beginning of year 941,158
End of year $ 936,389
Budgeted Amounts
16 City Council/RSA Agenda 241 Tuesday, September 24, 2024

REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING AND ON COMPLIANCE

AND OTHER MATTERS BASED ON AN AUDIT OF FINANCIAL

STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH

GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS
Independent Auditor’s Report
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
of the City of Union City
Union City, California
We have audited, in accordance with the auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, the financial statements of the Measure B Funds (Measure B Funds) of the City of Union City, California (City), as of and for the year ended June 30, 2023, and the related notes to the financial statements, and have issued our report thereon dated September 19, 2024.

Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting
In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements, we considered the City’s internal control over financial reporting (internal control) as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control.

A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance.

Page 2 ends

Report on Compliance and Other Matters
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the Measure B Funds’ financial statements are free from material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the financial statement. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards.

Purpose of this Report
The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity’s internal control or on compliance. This report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the entity’s internal control and compliance. Accordingly, this communication is not suitable for any other purpose.

Badawi and Associates
Berkeley, California
September 19, 2024
18 City Council/RSA Agenda 243 Tuesday, September 24, 2024

REPORT ON COMPLIANCE AND ON INTERNAL CONTROL

OVER COMPLIANCE FOR MEASURE B
Independent Auditor’s Report
To the Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council of the City of Union City
Union City, California
Report on Compliance for Measure B
Opinion on Compliance for Measure B
We have audited City of Union City’s (City) compliance with the types of compliance requirements described in the agreement between the City and Alameda County Transportation Commission that could have a direct and material effect on its Measure B 2000 Funds (Measure B Funds) for the year ended June 30, 2023.

In our opinion, the City complied, in all material respects, with the compliance requirements referred to above that could have a direct and material effect on its Measure B Funds for the year ended June 30, 2023.

Basis for Opinion on Measure B
We conducted our audit of compliance in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAS); the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States (Government Auditing Standards); and the agreement between the City and Alameda County Transportation Commission. Our responsibilities under those standards and are further described in the Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of Compliance section of our report.

Our audit does not provide a legal determination of the Measure B Funds compliance with the compliance requirements referred to above.

Responsibilities of Management for Compliance
Management is responsible for compliance with the requirements referred to above and for the design, implementation, and maintenance of effective internal control over compliance with the requirements of laws, statutes, regulations, rules and provisions of contracts or grant agreements applicable to the City’s Measure B Funds.
19 City Council/RSA Agenda 244 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 To the Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council of the City of Union City
Union City, California

Page 2 ends

Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of Compliance
Our objectives are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether material noncompliance with the compliance requirements referred to above occurred, whether due to fraud or error, and express an opinion on the Measure B Fund’s compliance based on our audit. Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance but is not absolute assurance and therefore is not a guarantee that an audit conducted in accordance with GAAS, Government Auditing Standards, and the agreement between the City and Alameda County Transportation Commission will always detect material noncompliance when it exists. The risk of not detecting material noncompliance resulting from fraud is higher than for that resulting from error, as fraud may involve collusion, forgery, intentional omissions, misrepresentations, or the override of internal control.

Noncompliance with the compliance requirements referred to above is considered material, if there is a substantial likelihood that, individually or in the aggregate, it would influence the judgment made by a reasonable user of the report on compliance about the Measure B Funds’ compliance with the requirements of the agreement between the City and Alameda County Transportation Commission.

In performing an audit in accordance with GAAS, Government Auditing Standards, and the agreement between the City and Alameda County Transportation Commission, we:
 Exercise professional judgment and maintain professional skepticism throughout the audit.  Identify and assess the risks of material noncompliance, whether due to fraud or error, and design and perform audit procedures responsive to those risks. Such procedures include examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the Measure B Funds’ compliance with the compliance requirements referred to above and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.
 Obtain an understanding of the City’s internal control over compliance relevant to the audit in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances and to test and report on internal control over compliance in accordance with the agreement between the City and Alameda County Transportation Commission, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of City’s internal control over compliance. Accordingly, no such opinion is expressed.

We are required to communicate with those charged with governance regarding, among other matters, the planned scope and timing of the audit and any significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in internal control over compliance that we identified during the audit. 20 City Council/RSA Agenda 245 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 To the Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council of the City of Union City
Union City, California

Page 3 ends

Report on Internal Control over Compliance
Our consideration of internal control over compliance was for the limited purpose described in the Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of Compliance section above and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control over compliance that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in internal control over compliance. Given these limitations, during our audit we did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over compliance that we consider to be material weaknesses, as defined below. However, material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in internal control over compliance may exist that were not identified.

A deficiency in internal control over compliance exists when the design or operation of a control over compliance does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of the agreement between the City and the Alameda County Transportation Commission on a timely basis. A material weakness in internal control over compliance is a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies in internal control over compliance, such that there is a reasonable possibility that material noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of the agreement between the City and the Alameda County Transportation Commission will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. A significant deficiency in internal control over compliance is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over compliance with a type of compliance requirement of the agreement between the City and the Alameda County Transportation Commission that is less severe than a material weakness in internal control over compliance, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance.

Our audit was not designed for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over compliance. Accordingly, no such opinion is expressed.

The purpose of this report on internal control over compliance is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over compliance and the results of that testing based on the requirements of the agreement between the City and the Alameda County Transportation Commission. Accordingly, this report is not suitable for any other purpose.

Badawi and Associates
Berkeley, California
September 19, 2024
21 City Council/RSA Agenda 246 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 City of Union City
Measure BB Funds
Union City, California
Financial Statements and
Independent Auditor’s Reports
For the year ended June 30, 2023
Exhibit B
City Council/RSA Agenda 247 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 City of Union City
Alameda County Transportation Commission – Measure BB Funds Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2023
Table of Contents
Page
Independent Auditor’s Report .................................................................................................................................1 Financial Statements:

Balance Sheets and Statements of Net Position.................................................................................................4 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and
Changes in Fund Balances .............................................................................................................................6 Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Position....................................................................7 Statement of Cash Flows ......................................................................................................................................8 Notes to Financial Statements..............................................................................................................................9 Supplementary Information:

Budgetary Basis of Accounting:

Budgetary Control and Budgetary Accounting............................................................................................18 Budgetary Comparison Schedule, ACTC Streets & Roads Special Revenue Fund.................................19 Budgetary Comparison Schedule, ACTC Bike & Pedestrian Special Revenue Fund.............................20 Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards..................................................................21 Report on Measure BB Compliance ..........................................................................................................................23 City Council/RSA Agenda 248 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
of the City of Union City
Union City, California
Report on the Audit of the Financial Statements
Opinions
We have audited the financial statements of the Measure BB Funds (Measure BB Funds) of the City of Union City, California (City), as of and for the year ended June 30, 2023, and the related notes to the financial statements as listed in the table of contents.

In our opinion, the accompanying financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position of the Measure BB Funds of the City, as of June 30, 2023, and the respective changes in financial position, and cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Basis for Opinions
We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAS) and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Our responsibilities under those standards are further described in the Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements section of our report. We are required to be independent of the Measure BB Funds of the City and to meet our other ethical responsibilities, in accordance with the relevant ethical requirements relating to our audit.

We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinions.

Emphasis of Matter
As discussed in Note 1, the financial statements present only the Measure BB Funds and do not purport to, and do not, present fairly the financial position of the City, as of June 30, 2023, or the changes in financial position or cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Our opinion is not modified with respect to this matter. 1 City Council/RSA Agenda 249 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
of the City of Union City
Union City, California

Page 2 ends

In preparing the financial statements, management is required to evaluate whether there are conditions or events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about the Measure BB Funds’ ability to continue as a going concern for twelve months beyond the financial statement date, including any currently known information that may raise substantial doubt shortly thereafter.

In performing an audit in accordance with GAAS, we:
 Exercise professional judgment and maintain professional skepticism throughout the audit.  Identify and assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error, and design and perform audit procedures responsive to those risks. Such procedures include examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.
 Obtain an understanding of internal control relevant to the audit in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Measure BB Funds’ internal control. Accordingly, no such opinion is expressed.  Evaluate the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluate the overall presentation of the financial statements.
 Conclude whether, in our judgment, there are conditions or events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about the Measure BB Funds’ ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time.

We are required to communicate with those charged with governance regarding, among other matters, the planned scope and timing of the audit, significant audit findings, and certain internal control–related matters that we identified during the audit.
2 City Council/RSA Agenda 250 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
of the City of Union City
Union City, California

Page 3 ends

Supplementary Information
Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that collectively comprise the Measure BB Funds’ financial statements. The budgetary comparison information is presented for purposes of additional analysis and is not a required part of the financial statements.

Badawi and Associates
Berkeley, California
September 19, 2024
3 City Council/RSA Agenda 251 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 City of Union City
Alameda County Transportation Commission - Measure BB Funds Balance Sheets and Statements of Net Position
June 30, 2023
Streets & Bike &
Roads Pedestrian Paths
ASSETS
Cash and investments $ 4,375,456 $ 1,059,460
Receivables:

Intergovernmental 308,459 83,313
Total assets $ 4,683,915 $ 1,142,773

LIABILITIES AND NET POSITION/FUND BALANCE
Liabilities
Accounts payable 39,227 2,686
Due to other funds - -
Total liabilities 39,227 2,686
Net position/fund balance
Fund balance:

Restricted for street maintenance & improvements 4,644,688 1,140,087 Total restricted 4,644,688 1,140,087
Total net position/fund balance 4,644,688 1,140,087
Total liabilities and net position/fund balance $ 4,683,915 $ 1,142,773 See accompanying notes to the financial statements
Special Revenue Funds
4 City Council/RSA Agenda 252 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 Mass Transit Paratransit Total
$ - $ - $ 5,434,916
168,294 101,532 661,598
$ 168,294 $ 101,532 $ 6,096,514
- - 41,913
168,294 101,532 269,826
168,294 101,532 311,739
- - 5,784,775
- - 5,784,775
5,784,775
$ 168,294 $ 101,532 $ 6,096,514
Enterprise Funds
5 City Council/RSA Agenda 253 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 City of Union City
Alameda County Transportation Commission - Measure BB Funds Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances For the year ended June 30, 2023
Streets & Bike &
Roads Pedestrian Total
REVENUES:

Direct Local Program Distribution Allocation $ 1,739,556 $ 469,842 $ 2,209,398 Investment income 63,002 15,459 78,461
Total revenues 1,802,558 485,301 2,287,859
EXPENDITURES:

Public works 119,079 123,706 242,785
Total expenditures 119,079 123,706 242,785
REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES 1,683,479 361,595 2,045,074 FUND BALANCES:

Beginning of year 2,961,209 778,492 3,739,701
End of year $ 4,644,688 $ 1,140,087 $ 5,784,775
See accompanying notes to the financial statements
Special Revenue Funds
6 City Council/RSA Agenda 254 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 City of Union City
Alameda County Transportation Commission - Measure BB Funds Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Position For the year ended June 30, 2023
Mass Transit Paratransit Total
OPERATING EXPENSES:

Purchased transportation $ 949,094 $ 572,587 $ 1,521,681 Total operating expenses 949,094 572,587 1,521,681
OPERATING LOSS (949,094) (572,587) (1,521,681)
NONOPERATING REVENUES:

Direct Local Program Distribution Allocation 949,094 572,587 1,521,681 Total nonoperating revenues 949,094 572,587 1,521,681
Change in net position - - -
NET POSITION:

Beginning of year - - -
End of year $ - $ - $ -
See accompanying notes to the financial statements
Enterprise Funds
7 City Council/RSA Agenda 255 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 City of Union City
Alameda County Transportation Commission - Measure BB Funds Statement of Cash Flows
For the year ended June 30, 2023
Mass Transit Paratransit Total
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES:

Cash payment to vendors for services $ (949,094) $ (572,587) $ (1,521,681) Net cash provided (used) by operating activities (949,094) (572,587) (1,521,681)

CASH FLOWS FROM NONCAPITAL
FINANCING ACTIVITIES:

Direct Local Program Distribution Allocation 949,094 572,587 1,521,681 Net cash provided (used) by noncapital
financing activities 949,094 572,587 1,521,681
Net increase (decrease) in cash
and cash equivalents - - -
CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS:

Beginning of year - - -
End of year $ - $ - $ -
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES:

Operating loss $ (949,094) $ (572,587) $ (1,521,681)
See accompanying notes to the financial statements
Enterprise Funds
8 City Council/RSA Agenda 256 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 City of Union City
Alameda County Transportation Commission – Measure BB Funds Notes to Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2023

1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
A. Reporting Entity
All transactions of the Alameda County Transportation Commission Measure BB Funds (Measure BB Funds) of the City of Union City, California (City), are included as separate special revenue and enterprise funds in the basic financial statements of the City. Measure BB Funds are used to account for the City’s share of revenues earned and expenditures incurred under the City’s streets and roads, bike and pedestrian, transit, and paratransit programs. The accompanying financial statements are for Measure BB Funds only and are not intended to fairly present the financial position or results of operations of the City.

Operating statements of governmental funds present increases (revenues and other financing sources) and decreases (expenditures and other financing uses) in fund balance.

Proprietary Fund Financial Statements
The financial statements of the enterprise funds are prepared on the accrual basis of accounting.

Revenues are recognized in the period in which they are earned while expenses are recognized in the period in which the related liability is incurred.

All proprietary funds are accounted for using the “economic resources” measurement focus. Accordingly, all assets and liabilities (whether current or noncurrent) are included on the Statement of Net Position.

The Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Position presents increases (revenues) and decreases (expenses) in net position. Operating revenues in a proprietary fund are those revenues that are generated from the primary operations of the fund. All other revenues are reported as nonoperating revenues. Operating expenses are those expenses that are essential to the primary operations of the fund. All other expenses are reported as non-operating expenses. 9 City Council/RSA Agenda 257 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 City of Union City
Alameda County Transportation Commission – Measure BB Funds Notes to Financial Statements, Continued
For the year ended June 30, 2023

1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES, CONTINUED C. Fund Accounting
The accounts are maintained on the basis of fund accounting. A fund is a separate accounting entity with a self-balancing set of accounts.

The following funds are used:

Special Revenue Fund – To account for the proceeds of specific revenues (other than for capital projects) that are legally restricted to be expended for specified purposes.

Enterprise Fund – To account for operations that are financed and operated in a manner similar to private business enterprises, where the intent of the governing body is that the costs of providing goods and services to the general public on a continuing basis be recovered through user charges.

D. Fund Balance /Net Position
Fund balances of governmental funds are classified in one of five categories:

Amounts considered “not in a spendable form” include items that are not expected to be converted to cash, such as prepaid items and long-term notes receivable.

These restrictions may be effectively changed only with the consent of the resource provider.

1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES, CONTINUED D. Fund Balance /Net Position, Continued
Assigned Fund Balance – Represents that portion of fund balance that includes amounts that are constrained by the City’s intended use of the resources but are neither restricted nor committed.

Net position is classified in the following categories:

Net Investment in Capital Assets – Consists of capital assets net of accumulated depreciation reduced by outstanding debt attributed to the acquisition, construction, or improvement of the assets.

Restricted Net Position – Consists of funds restricted by external creditors, grantors, contributors, or laws or regulations of other governmental entities.

Unrestricted Net Position – Consists of any amounts that do not meet the definition of net investment in capital assets or restricted net position.

In circumstances when an expense is made for a purpose for which amounts are available in multiple net position classifications, net position is generally depleted in the order of restricted and then unrestricted.

The City’s enterprise funds, Paratransit and Mass Transit, report zero amounts in their net position.

The Measure BB funds supplement passenger fares and operating grant revenues. All Measure BB funds received are expended during the year.
11 City Council/RSA Agenda 259 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 City of Union City
Alameda County Transportation Commission – Measure BB Funds Notes to Financial Statements, Continued
For the year ended June 30, 2023

F. Statement of Cash Flows
For purposes of the statement of cash flows, cash equivalents are defined as investments with original maturities of 90 days or less, which are readily convertible to known amounts of cash. The City considers all pooled cash and investments (consisting of cash and investments and restricted cash and investments) held by the City as cash and cash equivalents because the pool is used essentially as a demand deposit account from the standpoint of the funds. The City also considers all non-pooled cash and investments (consisting of cash with fiscal agents and restricted cash and investments held by fiscal agents) as cash and cash equivalents because investments meet the criteria for cash equivalents defined above.

2. MEASURE BB FUNDS
Under Measure BB, approved by the voters of Alameda County in November 2014, the City receives a portion of the proceeds of an additional one-half cent sales tax to be used to fund the 30-year transportation expenditure plan. This measure was adopted with the intent that the funds generated by the additional sales tax will not fund expenditures previously paid for by property taxes.

Measure BB funds were expended on the following projects in fiscal year 2022-23:

Streets and Roads Program – To provide funding for citywide overlay and slurry seal projects, paving maintenance, and installation of new traffic signals.

Bike and Pedestrian Program – To help fund construction of new sidewalks, citywide trail system rehabilitation, and intersection improvements.

Paratransit Program – To help fund Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) mandated service; to help fund the Union City “Paratransit Plus” program, which offers an expanded service area, group trips for seniors and the disabled, and urgent medical trips; and to help fund extended weekday service hours. Measure BB funds are considered spent in the year the funds are earned.

Mass Transit Program – To help fund the operations of the City’s own bus system, Union City Transit. This system operates daily (except for holidays) and provides local transit service to major destinations within the City. Union City Transit makes connections with other transit systems including BART, AC Transit, and Dumbarton Express. Measure BB funds are considered spent in the year the funds are earned.
12 City Council/RSA Agenda 260 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 City of Union City
Alameda County Transportation Commission – Measure BB Funds Notes to Financial Statements, Continued
For the year ended June 30, 2023

3. CASH AND INVESTMENTS
Measure BB Funds are to be pooled with the City’s cash and investments in order to generate optimum investment income.

The City pools its available cash for investment purposes. The City’s cash and cash equivalents are considered to be cash on hand, demand deposits, and short-term investments with original maturity of three months or less from date of acquisition. Cash and cash equivalents are combined with investments and displayed as cash and investments.

Investment income is allocated quarterly to funds based on their proportionate share of average quarterly cash balances.

Measure BB Funds had the following cash and investments at June 30, 2023:

Cash and investments $5,434,916
13 City Council/RSA Agenda 261 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 City of Union City
Alameda County Transportation Commission – Measure BB Funds Notes to Financial Statements, Continued
For the year ended June 30, 2023

3. CASH AND INVESTMENTS, CONTINUED
A. Investments
Under the provisions of the City’s investment policy, and in accordance with California Government Code, the following investments are authorized:

These investment value changes are unrealized since the City’s policy is to buy and hold investments until maturity dates.

B. Risk Disclosures
Interest Risk – Interest risk is the fluctuation in the fair value of investments due to changes in interest rates. The City’s exposure to losses caused by rising interest rates is minimized by limiting the average maturity of the City’s investments to not exceed five years. 14 City Council/RSA Agenda 262 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 City of Union City
Alameda County Transportation Commission – Measure BB Funds Notes to Financial Statements, Continued
For the year ended June 30, 2023

3. CASH AND INVESTMENTS, CONTINUED
B. Risk Disclosures, Continued
Credit Risk – Credit risk is the risk of loss of value of a security or investment due to downgrade of its rating due to a change in the ability of the issuer to fulfill its debt obligations. With the exception of U.S. Treasury securities and authorized pools, no more than 50% of the City’s total investment portfolio will be invested in a single security type or with a single financial institution to reduce the City’s exposure to credit risks.

4. INTERGOVERNMENTAL RECEIVABLES
Intergovernmental receivables represent the Measure BB sales tax revenues for the fiscal year received from the Alameda County Transportation Commission after June 30, 2023. 15 City Council/RSA Agenda 263 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 City of Union City
Alameda County Transportation Commission – Measure BB Funds Notes to Financial Statements, Continued
For the year ended June 30, 2023

5. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
The City participates in several grant programs. These programs are subject to further examination by the grantors and the amount, if any, of expenditures that may be disallowed by the granting agencies cannot be determined at this time. The City expects such amounts, if any, to be immaterial. 16 City Council/RSA Agenda 264 Tuesday, September 24, 2024

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
17 City Council/RSA Agenda 265 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 City of Union City
Alameda County Transportation Commission – Measure BB Funds Supplementary Information
For the year ended June 30, 2023

The City Council may amend the budget by resolution during the fiscal year. The City Manager is authorized to transfer budgeted amounts between departments within any fund; however, any revisions which alter the total appropriations of any fund must be approved by the City Council. Transfers between funds must be approved by the City Council. There were certain amendments made to the budget during the year for changes in employee compensation plans and to address variances between the original budget and actual activities. These adjustments are reflected in the final budget information presented in the comparison schedules.

Under encumbrance accounting, purchase orders, contracts, and other commitments for the expenditures of monies are recorded in order to reserve that portion of the applicable appropriation. Encumbrance accounting is employed as an extension of the formal budgetary process. Encumbrances outstanding at year-end are carried forward to the following fiscal year. 18 City Council/RSA Agenda 266 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 City of Union City
Alameda County Transportation Commission - Measure BB Funds Supplementary Information, Continued
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances - Budget and Actual ACTC Streets & Roads Special Revenue Fund
For the year ended June 30, 2023
Variance
with
Final
Budget
Actual Positive
Original Final Amounts (Negative)
REVENUES:

Direct Local Program Distribution Allocation $ 893,200 $ 893,200 $ 1,739,556 $ 846,356 Investment income 8,200 8,200 63,002 54,802
Total revenues 901,400 901,400 1,802,558 901,158
EXPENDITURES:

Current:

Public works 700,000 1,619,548 119,079 1,500,469
Total expenditures 700,000 1,619,548 119,079 1,500,469
Net change in fund balance $ 201,400 $ (718,148) 1,683,479 $ 2,401,627 FUND BALANCES:

Beginning of year 2,961,209
End of year $ 4,644,688
Budgeted Amounts
19 City Council/RSA Agenda 267 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 City of Union City
Alameda County Transportation Commission - Measure BB Funds Supplementary Information, Continued
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances - Budget and Actual ACTC Bike & Pedestrian Paths Special Revenue Fund
For the year ended June 30, 2023
Variance
with
Final
Budget
Actual Positive
Original Final Amounts (Negative)
REVENUES:

Direct Local Program Distribution Allocation $ 252,400 $ 252,400 $ 469,842 $ 217,442 Investment income 6,200 6,200 15,459 9,259
Total revenues 258,600 258,600 485,301 226,701
EXPENDITURES:

Current:

Public works 315,000 553,819 123,706 430,113
Total expenditures 315,000 553,819 123,706 430,113
Net change in fund balance $ (56,400) $ (295,219) 361,595 $ 656,814 FUND BALANCES:

Beginning of year 778,492
End of year $ 1,140,087
Budgeted Amounts
20 City Council/RSA Agenda 268 Tuesday, September 24, 2024

REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING AND ON COMPLIANCE

AND OTHER MATTERS BASED ON AN AUDIT OF FINANCIAL

STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH

GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS
Independent Auditor’s Report
To the Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council of the City of Union City
Union City, California
We have audited, in accordance with the auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, the financial statements of the Measure BB Funds (Measure BB Funds) of the City of Union City, California (City), as of and for the year ended June 30, 2023, and the related notes to the financial statements, and have issued our report thereon dated September 19, 2024.

Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements, we considered the City’s internal control over financial reporting in relation to Measure BB Funds (internal control) as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance.

Page 2 ends

Report on Compliance and Other Matters
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the Measure BB Funds’ financial statements are free from material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the financial statements. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards.

Badawi and Associates
Berkeley, California
September 19, 2024
22 City Council/RSA Agenda 270 Tuesday, September 24, 2024

REPORT ON COMPLIANCE AND ON INTERNAL CONTROL

OVER COMPLIANCE FOR MEASURE BB
Independent Auditor’s Report
To the Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council of the City of Union City
Union City, California
Report on Compliance for Measure BB
Opinion on Compliance for Measure BB
We have audited City of Union City’s (City) compliance with the types of compliance requirements described in the agreement between the City and Alameda County Transportation Commission that could have a direct and material effect on its Measure BB Funds (Measure BB Funds) for the year ended June 30, 2023.

In our opinion, the City complied, in all material respects, with the compliance requirements referred to above that could have a direct and material effect on its Measure BB Funds for the year ended June 30, 2023.

Basis for Opinion on Measure BB
We conducted our audit of compliance in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAS); the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States (Government Auditing Standards); and the agreement between the City and Alameda County Transportation Commission. Our responsibilities under those standards and are further described in the Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of Compliance section of our report.

We are required to be independent of the City and to meet our other ethical responsibilities, in accordance with relevant ethical requirements relating to our audit. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our opinion on compliance for the City’s Measure BB Funds. Our audit does not provide a legal determination of the Measure BB Funds compliance with the compliance requirements referred to above.

Responsibilities of Management for Compliance
Management is responsible for compliance with the requirements referred to above and for the design, implementation, and maintenance of effective internal control over compliance with the requirements of laws, statutes, regulations, rules and provisions of contracts or grant agreements applicable to the City’s Measure BB Funds.
23 City Council/RSA Agenda 271 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 To the Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council of the City of Union City
Union City, California

Page 2 ends

Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of Compliance
Our objectives are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether material noncompliance with the compliance requirements referred to above occurred, whether due to fraud or error, and express an opinion on the Measure BB Fund’s compliance based on our audit. Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance but is not absolute assurance and therefore is not a guarantee that an audit conducted in accordance with GAAS, Government Auditing Standards, and the agreement between the City and Alameda County Transportation Commission will always detect material noncompliance when it exists. The risk of not detecting material noncompliance resulting from fraud is higher than for that resulting from error, as fraud may involve collusion, forgery, intentional omissions, misrepresentations, or the override of internal control.

Noncompliance with the compliance requirements referred to above is considered material, if there is a substantial likelihood that, individually or in the aggregate, it would influence the judgment made by a reasonable user of the report on compliance about the Measure BB Fund’s compliance with the requirements of the agreement between the City and Alameda County Transportation Commission.

In performing an audit in accordance with GAAS, Government Auditing Standards, and the agreement between the City and Alameda County Transportation Commission, we:
 Exercise professional judgment and maintain professional skepticism throughout the audit.  Identify and assess the risks of material noncompliance, whether due to fraud or error, and design and perform audit procedures responsive to those risks. Such procedures include examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the Measure BB Funds’ compliance with the compliance requirements referred to above and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.
 Obtain an understanding of the City’s internal control over compliance relevant to the audit in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances and to test and report on internal control over compliance in accordance with the agreement between the City and Alameda County Transportation Commission, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of City’s internal control over compliance. Accordingly, no such opinion is expressed.

Other Matters
Under Measure BB, approved by the voters of Alameda County in 2014, the City has received a total of 12 months of revenue from July 2022 through June 2023. The Local Street and Roads program has received $1,739,556, the Bike and Pedestrian program has received $469,842, the Mass Transit program has received $949,094, and the Paratransit program has received $572,587. 24 City Council/RSA Agenda 272 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 To the Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council of the City of Union City
Union City, California

Page 3 ends

Our audit was not designed for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over compliance. Accordingly, no such opinion is expressed.

The purpose of this report on internal control over compliance is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over compliance and the results of that testing based on the requirements of the agreement between the City and the Alameda County Transportation Commission. Accordingly, this report is not suitable for any other purpose.

Badawi and Associates
Berkeley, California
September 19, 2024
25 City Council/RSA Agenda 273 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 City of Union City
Measure F Alameda
County Vehicle
Registration Fee Fund
Union City, California
Financial Statements and
Independent Auditor’s Reports
For the year ended June 30, 2023
Exhibit C
City Council/RSA Agenda 274 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 City of Union City
Measure F Alameda County Vehicle Registration Fee Fund
Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2023
Table of Contents
Page
Independent Auditor’s Report .................................................................................................................................1 Financial Statements:

Balance Sheet..........................................................................................................................................................5 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and
Changes in Fund Balance...............................................................................................................................6 Notes to Financial Statements..............................................................................................................................7 Supplementary Information:

Budgets and Budgetary Accounting ...........................................................................................................15 Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances – Budget and Actual:

Measure F Vehicle Registration Fund...................................................................................................16 Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards ..........................................17 Report on Measure F Vehicle Registration Fee Compliance..............................................................................19 City Council/RSA Agenda 275 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
of the City of Union City
Union City, California
Report on the Audit of the Financial Statements
Opinions
We have audited the financial statements of the Measure F Alameda County Vehicle Registration Fee Fund (VRF Fund) of the City of Union City, California (City), as of and for the year ended June 30, 2023, and the related notes to the financial statements as listed in the table of contents.

In our opinion, the accompanying financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the VRF Fund of the City, as of June 30, 2023, and the changes in financial position for the year then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Basis for Opinions
We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAS) and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Our responsibilities under those standards are further described in the Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements section of our report. We are required to be independent of the VRF Fund of the City and to meet our other ethical responsibilities, in accordance with the relevant ethical requirements relating to our audit. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinions.

Emphasis of Matter
As discussed in Note 1, the financial statements present only the VRF Fund and do not purport to, and do not, present fairly the financial position of the City, as of June 30, 2023, or the change in financial position for the year then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Our opinion is not modified with respect to this matter.

Page 2 ends

In preparing the financial statements, management is required to evaluate whether there are conditions or events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about the VRF Fund’s ability to continue as a going concern for twelve months beyond the financial statement date, including any currently known information that may raise substantial doubt shortly thereafter.

In performing an audit in accordance with GAAS, we:
 Exercise professional judgment and maintain professional skepticism throughout the audit.  Identify and assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error, and design and perform audit procedures responsive to those risks. Such procedures include examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.  Obtain an understanding of internal control relevant to the audit in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the VRF Fund’s internal control. Accordingly, no such opinion is expressed.  Evaluate the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluate the overall presentation of the financial statements.
 Conclude whether, in our judgment, there are conditions or events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about the VRF Fund’s ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time.

We are required to communicate with those charged with governance regarding, among other matters, the planned scope and timing of the audit, significant audit findings, and certain internal control–related matters that we identified during the audit.
2 City Council/RSA Agenda 277 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
of the City of Union City
Union City, California

Page 3 ends

Badawi and Associates
Berkeley, California
September 19, 2024
3 City Council/RSA Agenda 278 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 This page intentionally left blank.
4 City Council/RSA Agenda 279 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 City of Union City
Measure F Alameda County Vehicle Registration Fee Fund
Balance Sheet
June 30, 2023
ASSETS:

Cash and investments $ 1,555,583
Intergovernmental receivables 56,585
Total assets $ 1,612,168

LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE
Liabilities:

Accounts payable $ 32,018
Other Accrued Liabilities 18,561
Total liabilities 50,579
Fund Balance:

Restricted for
Street construction and maintenance 1,561,589
Total fund balance 1,561,589
Total liabilities and fund balance $ 1,612,168
See accompanying notes to the financial statements
5 City Council/RSA Agenda 280 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 City of Union City
Measure F Alameda County Vehicle Registration Fee Fund
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the year ended June 30, 2023
REVENUES:

Measure F revenues $ 307,835
Investment earnings 25,685
Total revenues 333,520
EXPENDITURES:

Public works 135,189
Total expenditures 135,189
Net change in fund balance 198,331
FUND BALANCE:

Beginning of year 1,363,258
End of year $ 1,561,589
See accompanying notes to the financial statements
6 City Council/RSA Agenda 281 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 City of Union City
Measure F Alameda County Vehicle Registration Fee Fund
Notes to Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2023

1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
A. Reporting Entity
All transactions of the Measure F Alameda County Vehicle Registration Fee Fund are reported in a special revenue fund, Measure F (VRF Fund), of the City of Union City, California (City). The special revenue fund is included as part of the Measure F fund in the basic financial statements of the City. The VRF Fund is used to account for the City’s revenues earned and expenditures incurred under the City’s various street maintenance and construction projects. The accompanying financial statements are for the VRF Fund only and are not intended to fairly present the financial position of the City.

B. Basis of Accounting
The accompanying financial statements are prepared on the modified accrual basis of accounting.

Revenues are generally recorded when measurable and available, and expenditures are recorded when the related liabilities are incurred.

The accounting and financial reporting treatment applied to a fund is determined by measurement focus.

All governmental funds are accounted for using a current financial resources measurement focus, wherein only current assets and current liabilities generally are included on the balance sheet. Operating statements of governmental funds present increases (revenues and other financing sources) and decreases (expenditures and other financing uses) in fund balance.

C. Fund Accounting
The operations of the VRF Fund are accounted for as part of the Measure F Fund. Funds are separate accounting entities with a set of self-balancing accounts that comprise their assets, liabilities, fund equity, revenues, and expenditures.

D. Fund Balance
Fund balances of governmental funds are classified in one of five categories:

Amounts considered “not in a spendable form” include items that are not expected to be converted to cash, such as prepaid items and long-term notes receivable.

These restrictions may be effectively changed only with the consent of the resource provider. 7 City Council/RSA Agenda 282 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 City of Union City
Measure F Alameda County Vehicle Registration Fee Fund
Notes to Financial Statements, Continued
For the year ended June 30, 2023

1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES, CONTINUED D. Fund Balance, Continued
Committed Fund Balance – Represents that portion of fund balance that includes amounts that can only be used for specific purposes pursuant to constraints imposed by formal action of the City Council, the City’s government’s highest-level decision-making authority. In order for funds to be considered committed, an ordinance must be introduced at a City Council meeting describing the proposed action. At the following City Council meeting, a second reading of the ordinance is made and the ordinance is adopted. The ordinance must be published in the City’s official newspaper of publication within 15 days of adoption. Ordinances are then codified in the City’s municipal code.

Those funds collected and expended for specific purposes defined in the City’s municipal code report committed fund balances. The established constraints remain binding until City Council takes action to amend the applicable section of municipal code.

Assigned Fund Balance – Represents that portion of fund balance that includes amounts that are constrained by the City’s intended use of the resources but are neither restricted nor committed.

Such intent needs to be established at the highest level of decision making, or by an official designated for that purpose. The City Council has given the City Manager the authority to assign amounts to be used for specific purposes.

E. Use of Estimates
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenditures during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. 8 City Council/RSA Agenda 283 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 City of Union City
Measure F Alameda County Vehicle Registration Fee Fund
Notes to Financial Statements, Continued
For the year ended June 30, 2023

2. MEASURE F ALAMEDA COUNTY VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEES
The Measure F Alameda County Vehicle Registration Fee (VRF) Program was approved by the voters in November 2010, with 63 percent of the vote. The fee will generate about $10.7 million per year by a $10 per year vehicle registration fee. The collection of the $10 per year vehicle registration fee started in the first week of May 2011.

The goal of the VRF program is to sustain the County’s transportation network and reduce traffic congestion and vehicle-related pollution. The program includes four categories of projects:
 Local Road Improvement and Repair Program (60 percent)  Transit for Congestion Relief (25 percent)
 Local Transportation Technology (10 percent)
 Pedestrian and Bicyclist Access and Safety Program (5 percent)

3. CASH AND INVESTMENTS
The VRF Fund’s cash and investments are pooled with the City’s cash and investments in order to generate optimum investment income.

The City pools it available cash for investment purposes. The City’s cash and cash equivalents are considered to be cash on hand, demand deposits, and short-term investments with original maturity of three months or less from date of acquisition. Cash and cash equivalents are combined with investments and displayed as cash and investments.

Investment income is allocated quarterly to funds based on their proportionate share of average quarterly cash balances.

The VRF Fund had the following cash and investments at June 30, 2023:

Cash and investments $1,555,583
9 City Council/RSA Agenda 284 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 City of Union City
Measure F Alameda County Vehicle Registration Fee Fund
Notes to Financial Statements, Continued
For the year ended June 30, 2023

3. CASH AND INVESTMENTS, CONTINUED
A. Investments
Under the provisions of the City’s investment policy, and in accordance with California Government Code, the following investments are authorized:

Maximum
Maximum Minimum Credit Percentage of
Authorized Investment Type Maturity Quality Portfolio
Municipal Bonds and Obligations 5 years A 30%
U.S. Treasury Obligations 5 years None No Limit
Federal Agency Obligations 5 years None No Limit
State of California Bonds and
Obligations 5 years None No Limit
Banker Acceptances 180 days A1 40%
Commercial Paper 270 days A-1 25%
Negotiable Certificates of Deposit 5 years None 30%
All Other Bank/Time Deposits 5 years None No Limit
Repurchase Agreements 1 year None No Limit
Reverse Repurchase Agreements and
Securities Lending Agreements 92 days None 20%
Medium-Term and Corporate Notes 5 years A 30%
Mutual Funds N/A Multiple 20%
Money Market Mutual Funds N/A Multiple 20%
Collateralized Bank Deposits 5 years None No Limit
Mortgage Pass-Through and AssetBacked Securities 5 years AA 20% Local Government Investment Pools N/A None No Limit
State of California Local Agency
Investment Fund (LAIF) N/A None No Limit
In accordance with GASB Statement No. 31, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Certain Investments and for External Investment Pools, investments were stated at fair value using the aggregate method in all funds and component units. The City’s investments are carried at fair value as required by generally accepted accounting principles. The City accounts for all changes in fair value that occurred during the year and these changes are reflected in the fund balance for the fiscal year. These investment value changes are unrealized since the City’s policy is to hold and buy investments until maturity dates.

B. Risk Disclosures
Interest Risk – Interest rate risk is the fluctuation in the fair value of investments due to changes in interest rates. The City’s exposure to losses caused by rising interest rates is minimized by limiting the average maturity of the City’s investments to not to exceed five years. 10 City Council/RSA Agenda 285 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 City of Union City
Measure F Alameda County Vehicle Registration Fee Fund
Notes to Financial Statements, Continued
For the year ended June 30, 2023

3. CASH AND INVESTMENTS, CONTINUED
Credit Risk – Credit risk is the risk of loss of value of a security or investment due to downgrade of its rating due to a change in the ability of the issuer to fulfill its debt obligation. With the exception of U.S. Treasury securities and authorized pools, no more than 50% of the City’s total investment portfolio will be invested in a single security type or with a single financial institution to reduce the City’s exposure to credit risks.

Custodial Credit Risk – The custodial credit risk for investments is the risk that in the event of the failure of a counterparty, the investor will not be able to recover the value of its investments or collateral securities that are in the possession of an outside party. None of the City’s investments were subject to custodial credit risk.

4. INTERGOVERNMENTAL RECEIVABLES
The intergovernmental receivables includes Measure F VRF revenues received from the Alameda County Transportation Commission after June 30, 2023.
11 City Council/RSA Agenda 286 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 City of Union City
Measure F Alameda County Vehicle Registration Fee Fund
Notes to Financial Statements, Continued
For the year ended June 30, 2023

5. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
The City participates in several grant programs. These programs are subject to further examination by the grantors and the amount, if any, of expenditures that may be disallowed by the granting agencies cannot be determined at this time. The City expects such amounts, if any, to be immaterial. 12 City Council/RSA Agenda 287 Tuesday, September 24, 2024

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
13 City Council/RSA Agenda 288 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 This page intentionally left blank.
14 City Council/RSA Agenda 289 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 City of Union City
Measure F Alameda County Vehicle Registration Fee Fund
Supplementary Information
For the year ended June 30, 2023

1. BUDGETS AND BUDGETARY ACCOUNTING
A. Budgetary Control and Budgetary Accounting
The City Council adopts a two-year operating budget for the General Fund, Special Revenue funds, and Debt Service funds, with each year of the budget document independent of the other. The operating budget is effective July 1 and lapses the following June 30. Budgets are adopted on a basis consistent with generally accepted accounting principles. The budget is controlled at the department level. The City’s five-year capital improvement plan serves as the basis for the capital project budgets.

Appropriations for Capital Project funds are approved at the same time operating budgets are adopted.

These appropriations are made in the fiscal year the capital project is scheduled to commence and are effective for the life of the project. Amendments to capital budgets may be approved by Council at any time during the project’s life. As a result, budget-to-actual schedules are not presented.

Under encumbrance accounting, purchase orders, contracts, and other commitments for the expenditures of monies are recorded in order to reserve that portion of the applicable appropriation.

Encumbrance accounting is employed as an extension of the formal budgetary process. Encumbrances outstanding at year-end are carried forward to the following fiscal year. Per Council resolution, appropriations are increased by the amount of outstanding encumbrances. 15 City Council/RSA Agenda 290 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 City of Union City
Supplementary Information, Continued
Measure F Alameda County Vehicle Registration Fee Fund
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual For the year ended June 30, 2023
Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Positive
Original Final Amounts (Negative)
REVENUES:

Measure F revenue $ 298,200 $ 298,200 $ 307,835 $ 9,635 Investment income 4,000 4,000 25,685 21,685
Total revenues 302,200 302,200 333,520 31,320
EXPENDITURES:

Public works 315,000 513,508 135,189 378,319
Total expenditures 315,000 513,508 135,189 378,319
NET CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE $ (12,800) $ (211,308) 198,331 $ 409,639 FUND BALANCE:

Beginning of year 1,363,258
End of year $ 1,561,589
Budgeted Amounts
16 City Council/RSA Agenda 291 Tuesday, September 24, 2024

REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING AND ON COMPLIANCE

AND OTHER MATTERS BASED ON AN AUDIT OF FINANCIAL

STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH

GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS
Independent Auditor’s Report
To the Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council of the City of Union City
Union City, California
We have audited, in accordance with the auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, the financial statements of the Measure F Alameda County Vehicle Registration Fee Fund (VRF Fund) of the City of Union City, California (City), as of and for the year ended June 30, 2023, and the related notes to the financial statements, and have issued our report thereon dated September 19, 2024.

Page 2 ends

Report on Compliance and Other Matters
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the VRF Fund’s financial statements are free from material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the financial statements. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards.

Badawi and Associates
Berkeley, California
September 19, 2024
18 City Council/RSA Agenda 293 Tuesday, September 24, 2024

REPORT ON COMPLIANCE AND ON INTERNAL CONTROL

OVER COMPLIANCE FOR MEASURE F
Independent Auditor’s Report
To the Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council of the City of Union City
Union City, California
Report on Compliance for Measure F
Opinion on Compliance for Measure F
We have audited City of Union City’s (City) compliance with the types of compliance requirements described in the agreement between the City and Alameda County Transportation Commission that could have a direct and material effect on its Measure F Alameda County Vehicle Registration Fee Fund (VRF Fund) for the year ended June 30, 2023.

In our opinion, the City complied, in all material respects, with the compliance requirements referred to above that could have a direct and material effect on its VRF Fund for the year ended June 30, 2023.

Basis for Opinion on Measure F
We conducted our audit of compliance in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAS); the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States (Government Auditing Standards); and the agreement between the City and Alameda County Transportation Commission. Our responsibilities under those standards and are further described in the Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of Compliance section of our report.

We are required to be independent of the City and to meet our other ethical responsibilities, in accordance with relevant ethical requirements relating to our audit. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our opinion on compliance for the City’s VRF Fund. Our audit does not provide a legal determination of the VRF Fund’s compliance with the compliance requirements referred to above.

Responsibilities of Management for Compliance
Management is responsible for compliance with the requirements referred to above and for the design, implementation, and maintenance of effective internal control over compliance with the requirements of laws, statutes, regulations, rules and provisions of contracts or grant agreements applicable to the City’s VRF Fund.
19 City Council/RSA Agenda 294 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 To the Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council of the City of Union City
Union City, California

Page 2 ends

Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of Compliance
Our objectives are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether material noncompliance with the compliance requirements referred to above occurred, whether due to fraud or error, and express an opinion on the VRF Fund’s compliance based on our audit. Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance but is not absolute assurance and therefore is not a guarantee that an audit conducted in accordance with GAAS, Government Auditing Standards, and the agreement between the City and Alameda County Transportation Commission will always detect material noncompliance when it exists. The risk of not detecting material noncompliance resulting from fraud is higher than for that resulting from error, as fraud may involve collusion, forgery, intentional omissions, misrepresentations, or the override of internal control.

Noncompliance with the compliance requirements referred to above is considered material, if there is a substantial likelihood that, individually or in the aggregate, it would influence the judgment made by a reasonable user of the report on compliance about the VRF Fund’s compliance with the requirements of the agreement between the City and Alameda County Transportation Commission.

In performing an audit in accordance with GAAS, Government Auditing Standards, and the agreement between the City and Alameda County Transportation Commission, we:
 Exercise professional judgment and maintain professional skepticism throughout the audit.  Identify and assess the risks of material noncompliance, whether due to fraud or error, and design and perform audit procedures responsive to those risks. Such procedures include examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the VRF Fund’s compliance with the compliance requirements referred to above and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  Obtain an understanding of the City’s internal control over compliance relevant to the audit in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances and to test and report on internal control over compliance in accordance with the agreement between the City and Alameda County Transportation Commission, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of City’s internal control over compliance. Accordingly, no such opinion is expressed.

Page 3 ends

Our audit was not designed for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over compliance. Accordingly, no such opinion is expressed.

The purpose of this report on internal control over compliance is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over compliance and the results of that testing based on the requirements of the agreement between the City and the Alameda County Transportation Commission. Accordingly, this report is not suitable for any other purpose.

Badawi and Associates
Berkeley, California
September 19, 2024
21 City Council/RSA Agenda 296 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 City of Union
City
Transportation Development
Act Program
Union City, California
Financial Statements and
Independent Auditor’s Reports
For the year ended June 30, 2023
Exhibit D
City Council/RSA Agenda 297 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 City of Union City
Transportation Development Act Program
For the year ended June 30, 2023
Table of Contents
Page
Independent Auditor’s Report.................................................................................................................................1 Financial Statements:

Enterprise Funds Financial Statements
Statement of Net Position......................................................................................................................................5 Statement of Revenues, Expenses and
Changes in Net Position ........................................................................................................................................6 Statement of Cash Flows..............................................................................................................................................7 Notes to Financial Statements .....................................................................................................................................8 Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards................................................................15 Independent Auditor’s Report on Compliance ....................................................................................................17 City Council/RSA Agenda 298 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
of the City of Union City
Union City, California
Report on the Audit of the Financial Statements
Opinions
We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the Transportation Development Act (TDA) Funds of the City of Union City, California, as of and for the year ended June 30, 2023, and the related notes to the financial statements as listed in the table of contents.

In our opinion, the accompanying financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position of the TDA Funds, as of June 30, 2023, and the respective changes in financial position and cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Basis for Opinions
We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAS) and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Our responsibilities under those standards are further described in the Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements section of our report. We are required to be independent of the City and to meet our other ethical responsibilities, in accordance with the relevant ethical requirements relating to our audit. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinions.

Emphasis of Matter
As discussed in Note 1, the financial statements present only the TDA Funds and do not purport to, and do not, present fairly the financial position of the City, as of June 30, 2023, and the changes in its financial position or where applicable, its cash flows for the years ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Our opinion is not modified with respect to this matter.
1 City Council/RSA Agenda 299 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
of the City of Union City
Union City, California

Page 2 ends

In preparing the financial statements, management is required to evaluate whether there are conditions or events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about the TDA Funds’ ability to continue as a going concern for twelve months beyond the financial statement date, including any currently known information that may raise substantial doubt shortly thereafter.

In performing an audit in accordance with GAAS, we:
 Exercise professional judgment and maintain professional skepticism throughout the audit.  Identify and assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error, and design and perform audit procedures responsive to those risks. Such procedures include examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.
 Obtain an understanding of internal control relevant to the audit in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the TDA Funds’ internal control. Accordingly, no such opinion is expressed.
 Evaluate the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluate the overall presentation of the financial statements.
 Conclude whether, in our judgment, there are conditions or events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about the TDA funds’ ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time.
2 City Council/RSA Agenda 300 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
of the City of Union City
Union City, California

Page 3 ends

Required Supplementary Information
Management has omitted management’s discussion and analysis that accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require to be presented to supplement the basic financial statements. Such missing information, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board who considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the basic financial statements in an appropriate operational, economic, or historical context. Our opinions on the basic financial statements are not affected by this missing information.

Other Reporting Required by Government Auditing Standards In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated September 19, 2024 on our consideration of the TDA funds’ internal control over financial reporting and on our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements and other matters. The purpose of that report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the TDA Funds’ internal control over financial reporting and compliance.

Badawi and Associates, CPAs
Berkeley, California
September 19, 2024
3 City Council/RSA Agenda 301 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 This page intentionally left blank
4 City Council/RSA Agenda 302 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 City of Union City
Transportation Development Act Program
Program Statement of Net Position
For the year ended June 30, 2023
Transit Paratransit Total
ASSETS
Current assets
Cash and investments $ - $ - $ -
Taxes receivable 168,294 101,531 269,825
Accounts receivable 97 2,750 2,847
Intergovernmental receivables 3,542,838 629,971 4,172,809 Total current assets 3,711,229 734,252 4,445,481
Noncurrent assets
Capital assets:

Depreciable, net 3,168,750 509,143 3,677,893
Total noncurrent assets 3,168,750 509,143 3,677,893
Total assets 6,879,979 1,243,395 8,123,374

LIABILITIES
Current liabilities:

Accounts payable 911,217 334,659 1,245,876
Accrued payroll - - -
Other accrued liabilities - - -
Due to general fund -
Due to other City funds 3,162,948 397,769 3,560,717
Due to other agencies - - -
Deposits payable - - -
Unearned revenue 1,578 - 1,578
Accrued compensated absences - current 14,946 8,048 22,994 Total current liabilities 4,090,689 740,476 4,831,165
Noncurrent liabilities:

Accrued compensated absences - noncurrent 31,447 16,933 48,380 Total noncurrent liabilities 31,447 16,933 48,380
Total liabilities 4,122,136 757,409 4,879,545

NET POSITION
Investment in capital assets 3,168,750 509,143 3,677,893 Unrestricted (410,907) (23,157) (434,064)
Total net position $ 2,757,843 $ 485,986 $ 3,243,829
Enterprise Funds
See accompanying notes to financial statements
5 City Council/RSA Agenda 303 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 City of Union City
Transportation Development Act Program
Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net
Position For the year ended June 30, 2023
Transit Paratransit Total

OPERATING REVENUES
Charges for services $ 240,064 $ 37,186 $ 277,250
Total operating revenues 240,064 37,186 277,250

OPERATING EXPENSES
Payroll and related costs 513,415 139,168 652,583
Services and supplies 883,450 90,920 974,370
Purchased transportation 4,924,763 - 4,924,763
Paratransit contract - 1,144,098 1,144,098
Administration 270,667 32,273 302,940
Depreciation 615,836 158,810 774,646
Total operating expenses 7,208,131 1,565,269 8,773,400
Operating (Loss) (6,968,067) (1,528,083) (8,496,150)

NONOPERATING REVENUES (EXPENSES)
Intergovernmental revenues (expenses)
TDA allocation - Article 4 3,789,969 629,971 4,419,940
TDA allocation - Article 4.5 - 183,243 183,243
State Transit Assistance 420,745 159,520 580,265
FTA Section 5307 39,694 - 39,694
ACTC Measure BB sales tax 949,094 572,587 1,521,681
STA-State of Good Repair 16,561 3,245 19,806
BAAQMD Grant 173,107 - 173,107
Investment income (loss) 21,591 3,952 25,543
Total nonoperating revenues 5,410,761 1,552,518 6,963,279 Changes in net position (1,557,306) 24,435 (1,532,871)
BEGINNING NET POSITION, AS RESTATED 4,315,149 461,551 4,776,700 ENDING NET POSITION $ 2,757,843 $ 485,986 $ 3,243,829
Enterprise Funds
See accompanying notes to financial statements
6 City Council/RSA Agenda 304 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 City of Union City
Transportation Development Act Program
Statement of Cash Flows
For the year ended June 30, 2023
Transit Paratransit Total

CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES
Cash receipts from customers $ 240,064 $ 37,186 $ 277,250 Cash paid to suppliers (5,163,038) (990,503) (6,153,541) Cash to employees for services (787,037) (173,032) (960,069) Net cash used in operating activities (5,710,011) (1,126,349) (6,836,360)

CASH FLOWS FROM NONCAPITAL AND RELATED

FINANCING ACTIVITIES
Cash receipt from other funds 353,441 357,823 711,264
Cash receipt from operating grants and taxes 5,334,979 740,827 6,075,806 Net cash provided by noncapital and related financing activities 5,688,420 1,098,650 6,075,806

CASH FLOWS FROM CAPITAL AND RELATED FINANCING ACTIVITIES Cash receipt from capital grants - 186,488 186,488
Cash paid for the acquisition/construction of capital assets - (162,741) (162,741) Net cash used in capital and related financing activities - 23,747 23,747

CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES
Interest income received 21,591 3,952 25,543
Net cash provided by investing activities 21,591 3,952 25,543 Change in cash and cash investments - - -
Cash and investments, beginning of period - - -
Cash and investments, end of period - - -
Reconciliation of Operating (Loss) to Cash Flows
from Operating Activities:

Operating (loss) $ (6,968,067) $ (1,528,083) $ (8,496,150) Adjustments to reconcile operating income to cash flows from Operating Activities:

Depreciation 615,836 158,810 774,646
Change in assets and liabilities:

Accounts payable and accrued liabilities 645,175 244,515 889,690 Accrued compensated absences (2,955) (1,591) (4,546)
Net cash used in operating activities $ (5,710,011) $ (1,126,349) $ (6,836,360) Enterprise Funds
See accompanying notes to financial statements
7 City Council/RSA Agenda 305 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 City of Union City
Transportation Development Act Program
Notes to Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2023

1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
A. Reporting Entity
The City of Union City (City) has developed and administers the Transportation Development Act (TDA) Programs to provide transit and paratransit services to area residents. These TDA programs are funded through grants received from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) under Local Transportation Fund allocations. Additional funding is provided by contributions from State Transit Assistance allocations, the Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) Measure B and Measure BB sales taxes, state and federal funds and ridership fares. The City contracts with a third-party operator to provide transit and paratransit services.

B. Fund Accounting
The operations of the TDA Programs are accounted for in two separate enterprise funds of the City: the Transit Fund and the Paratransit Fund. The funds are separate accounting entities with a set of selfbalancing accounts which comprise their assets, liabilities, fund equity, revenues and expenses.

C. Basis of Accounting
Basis of accounting refers to when revenues and expenses are recognized. The TDA Programs are presented in the accompanying financial statements in accordance with the requirements of the Public Utilities Code Section 99243 as follows:

Enterprise Fund – The enterprise fund is used to account for operations financed and operated similar to business activities such as services rendered to the general public on a fee basis.

The TDA Program’s operations are accounted for using the accrual basis of accounting under which revenues are recognized when earned and expenses are recognized when incurred. The TDA Programs are part of the City and are included in the enterprise funds of the City’s basic financial statements.

D. Cash and Cash Equivalents
The City pools its available cash (which includes the TDA Program’s cash) for investment purposes.

The City’s cash and cash equivalents are considered to be cash on hand, demand deposits and shortterm investments with original maturity of three months or less from the date of acquisition. Cash and cash equivalents are combined with investments and displayed as Cash and Investments. 8 City Council/RSA Agenda 306 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 City of Union City
Transportation Development Act Program
Notes to Financial Statements, Continued
For the year ended June 30, 2023

1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES, Continued E. Capital Assets
Capital assets include buildings and improvements and equipment and machinery. Depreciation is provided using the straight-line method over a fifteen-year life for buildings and improvements and over a three- to twelve- year life for equipment and machinery.

F. Compensated Absences
Compensated absences are comprised of earned but unused administrative leave, compensated time off in lieu of overtime pay and unused vacation hours which are payable to the employee upon separation of employment. The maximum hours of each compensated leave type that may be accrued is determined by bargaining unit agreements. The liability for compensated absences includes salaryrelated benefits, where applicable.

G. Use of Estimates
The preparation of the basic financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles requires management to make estimates and assumptions. These estimates and assumptions affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and the disclosures of contingent assets and liabilities. In addition, estimates affect the reported amount of expenses. Actual results could differ from these estimates and assumptions.

2. CASH AND INVESTMENTS
TDA Program Funds are pooled with the City’s cash and investments in order to generate optimum interest income. The City pools its available cash for investment purposes. The City’s cash and cash equivalents are considered to be cash on hand, demand deposits and short-term investments with original maturity of three months or less from date of acquisition. Cash and cash equivalents are combined with investments and displayed as Cash and Investments.

Investment income is allocated quarterly to funds based on their proportionate share of average quarterly cash balances.

Amounts reported as unrealized gain/(loss) in market value of investments are made in accordance with Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement 31 which states all investment income, including changes in the fair value of investments should be recognized as revenue in the operating statement.

The TDA Program Funds had the following cash and investments at June 30, 2023:

Cash and Investments $ 0
9 City Council/RSA Agenda 307 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 City of Union City
Transportation Development Act Program
Notes to Financial Statements, Continued
For the year ended June 30, 2023

2. CASH AND INVESTMENTS, Continued
A. Investments
Under the provisions of the City’s investment policy, and in accordance with California Government Code, the following investments are authorized:

Maximum
Maximum Minimum Credit Percentage of
Authorized Investment Type Maturity Quality Portfolio
Municipal Bonds and Obligations 5 years A 30%
U.S. Treasury Obligations 5 years None No Limit
Federal Agency Obligations 5 years None No Limit
State of California Bonds and
Obligations 5 years None No Limit
Banker Acceptances 180 days A1 40%
Commercial Paper 270 days A-1 25%
Negotiable Certificates of Deposit 5 years None 30%
All Other Bank/Time Deposits 5 years None No Limit
Repurchase Agreements 1 year None No Limit
Reverse Repurchase Agreements and
Securities Lending Agreements 92 days None 20%
Medium-Term and Corporate Notes 5 years A 30%
Mutual Funds N/A Multiple 20%
Money Market Mutual Funds N/A Multiple 20%
Collateralized Bank Deposits 5 years None No Limit
Mortgage Pass-Through and AssetBacked Securities 5 years AA 20% Local Government Investment Pools N/A None No Limit
State of California Local Agency
Investment Fund (LAIF) N/A None No Limit
In accordance with GASB Statement No. 31, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Certain Investments and for External Investment Pools, investments were stated as fair value using the aggregate method in all funds and component units. The City’s investments are carried at fair market value as required by generally accepted accounting principles. The City accounts for all changes in fair value that occurred during the year which are reflected in the fund balance for the fiscal year. These investment value changes are unrealized since the City’s policy is to buy and hold investments until maturity dates. 10 City Council/RSA Agenda 308 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 City of Union City
Transportation Development Act Program
Notes to Financial Statements, Continued
For the year ended June 30, 2023

2. CASH AND INVESTMENTS, Continued
B. Risk Disclosures, Continued
Interest Risk – Interest rate risk is the fluctuation in fair value of investments due to changes in interest rates. The City’s exposure to losses caused by rising interest rates is minimized by limiting the average maturity of the City’s investments not to exceed five years.

Credit Risk – Credit risk is the risk of loss of value of an investment due to a downgrade of its rating or the failure of impairment of its issuer. It is the City’s policy to limit its investments in these investment types to the top rating issued by nationally recognized statistical rating organizations, including raters Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s Investor’s Service.

Custodial Credit Risk – For an investment, custodial credit risk is the risk that, in the event of the failure of the counterparty, the City will not be able to recover the value of its investments or collateral securities that are in the possession of an outside party. None of the City’s investments were subject to custodial credit risk.

C. Local Agency Investment Fund
The City is a voluntary participant in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) that is regulated by California Government Code Section 16429 under the oversight of the Treasurer of the State of California. The balance is available for withdrawal on demand. The City’s investments with LAIF at June 30, 2023, include a portion of the pool funds invested in Structured Notes and Asset-Backed Securities. These investments include the following:

Structured Notes are debt securities (other than asset-backed securities) whose cash flow characteristics (coupon rate, redemption amount, or stated maturity) depend upon one or more indices and/or that have embedded forwards or options.

Asset-Backed Securities, the bulk of which are mortgage-backed securities, entitle their purchasers to receive a share of the cash flows from a pool of assets such as principal and interest repayments from a pool of mortgages (such as Collateralized Mortgage Obligations) or credit card receivables.

As of June 30, 2023, the City invested in LAIF, which had invested 2.78% of the pool investments in Structured Notes and Asset-Backed Securities as compared to 1.88% in the previous year. The City reports its investment in LAIF at the fair value amount provided by LAIF, which is the same as the value of the pool share. The fair value of LAIF was calculated by applying a factor of 0.98712 to the total investments held by LAIF.
11 City Council/RSA Agenda 309 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 City of Union City
Transportation Development Act Program
Notes to Financial Statements, Continued
For the year ended June 30, 2023

3. TAXES AND INTERGOVERMENTAL RECEIVABLES
For the City’s enterprise fund, the TDA Program Fund’s taxes receivable of $269,825 as of June 30, 2023 represents sales tax due from the Alameda County Transportation Commission under Measure BB.

Total intergovernmental receivables of $4,172,809 represent amounts due to the City from the State of California, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Federal Transit Administration, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and other governmental agencies for various grants.

4. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION GRANT
Metropolitan Transportation Commission grant revenues are recognized as earned when the related costs have been incurred. During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023, the City incurred eligible costs and earned reimbursements under the following Transportation Development Act and State Transit Assistance grants:

Transit Paratransit
Allocation Services Services Total
TDA Article 4.0 $ 3,789,969 $ 629,971 $ 4,419,940
TDA Article 4.5 - 183,243 183,243
STA Article 4.0 420,745 159,520 580,265
STA-State of Good Repair 16,561 3,245 19,806
$ 4,227,275 $ 975,979 $ 5,203,254
12 City Council/RSA Agenda 310 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 City of Union City
Transportation Development Act Program
Notes to Financial Statements, Continued
For the year ended June 30, 2023

5. FARE-PLUS-LOCAL-MATCH RECOVERY RATIO
The TDA is defined in Chapter 4 of the California Public Utilities Code commencing with Section 99200. The TDA Program Fund are subject to TDA provisions requiring the calculation of and adherence to fare and local support ratios for TDA transit funding. Accordingly, the TDA Program Fund must maintain a minimum Fare-Plus-Local-Match Recovery Ratio of 20%. The Fund’s Fare-PlusLocal-Match Recovery Ratio of operating revenues to operating expenses for the years ended June 30, 2023 indicate the City is in compliance with the provisions of the TDA for the years ended June 30, 2023, as computed as below:

6. CAPITAL ASSETS
Changes in capital assets for the year ended June 30, 2023 were as follows:
2023
Operating revenues - fares $ 277,250
Local match - Measure B and Measure BB 1,521,681
(a) Net Operating revenues 1,798,931
Operating expenses 8,773,400
Depreciation expense (774,646)
(b) Net operating costs, net of depreciation $ 7,998,754 (c) Fare revenue ratio [(a) / (b)] 22%
Balance
July 1, 2022 Additions Retirements
Balance
June 30, 2023
Depreciable assets:

Buildings and improvements $ 3,862,710 $ - $ - $ 3,862,710 Equipment and machinery 12,049,282 162,741 (1,457,940) 10,754,083 Total depreciable assets 15,911,992 162,741 (1,457,940) 14,616,793 Less accumulated depreciation:

Buildings and improvements (2,120,038) (97,182) (2,217,220) Equipment and machinery (9,502,156) (677,464) 1,457,940 (8,721,680) Total accumulated depreciation (11,622,194) (774,646) 1,457,940 (10,938,900) Net depreciable assets 4,289,798 (611,905) - 3,677,893
Business-type activities
capital assets, net $ 4,289,798 $ (611,905) $ - $ 3,677,893 13 City Council/RSA Agenda 311 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 City of Union City
Transportation Development Act Program
Notes to Financial Statements, Continued
For the year ended June 30, 2023

7. REFUND DUE TO THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION The City refunds to the MTC over-allocations of TDA operating funds received. For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023, no refund was due to MTC as eligible expenses exceeded amounts collected from MTC.

8. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
The City participates in several grant programs. These programs have been audited by the City’s independent accountants in accordance with the provisions of applicable State requirements. No cost disallowances were proposed as a result of these audits. However, these programs are still subject to further examination by the grantors and the amount, if any, of expenses which may be disallowed by the granting agencies cannot be determined at this time. The City expects such amounts, if any, to be immaterial.

9. RESTATEMENT OF PREVIOUSLY ISSUED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS The City restated beginning net position for the TDA financial statements for corrections made to unearned revenues that were identified as part of the City’s financial statement audit for fiscal year ended June 30, 2022.
 Transit Enterprise Fund net position was restated from $3,896,926 to $4,315,149.  Paratransit Enterprise Fund net position was restated from $440,500 to $461,551. 14 City Council/RSA Agenda 312 Tuesday, September 24, 2024

REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING AND ON COMPLIANCE

AND OTHER MATTERS BASED ON AN AUDIT OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED

IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS
Independent Auditor’s Report
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
of the City of Union City
Union City, California
We have audited, in accordance with the auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, the financial statements of the Transportation Development Act (TDA) Funds of the City of Union City, California (City), as of and for the year ended June 30, 2023, and the related notes to the financial statements, and have issued our report thereon dated September 19, 2024.

Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements, we considered the City’s internal control over financial reporting (internal control) to determine the audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control.

Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control.

A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance.

Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies. Given these limitations, during our audit we did not identify any deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be material weaknesses. However, material weaknesses or significant deficiencies may exist that were not identified. 15 City Council/RSA Agenda 313 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
of the City of Union City
Union City, California
Page Two
Report on Compliance and Other Matters
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the TDA Funds’ financial statements are free from material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the determination of financial statement amounts. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit and, accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards.

Badawi and Associates, CPAs
Berkeley, California
September 19, 2024
16 City Council/RSA Agenda 314 Tuesday, September 24, 2024

REPORT ON COMPLIANCE AND ON INTERNAL CONTROL

OVER COMPLIANCE FOR TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDS Independent Auditor’s Report
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
of the City of Union City
Union City, California
Report on Compliance
Opinions
We have audited the City of Union City’s (City) compliance with the types of compliance requirements described in Section 6666 and 6667 of the Rules and Regulations of the California Administrative Code in the Transportation Development Act Statutes and Administrative Code for 1987 (the Act) and the allocation instructions and resolutions of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission applicable to the City’s Transportation Development Act Program (TDA Program) for the year ended June 30, 2023.

In our opinion, the City complied, in all material respects, with the compliance requirements referred to above that could have a direct and material effect on its TDA Program for the year ended June 30, 2023.

Basis for Opinion
We conducted our audit of compliance in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAS); the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States; and Section 6666 and 6667 of the rules and regulations of the California Administrative Code in the Transportation Development Act Statutes and Administrative Code for 1987 (the Act); and the allocation instructions and resolutions of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Our responsibilities under those standards and the Act are further described in the Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of Compliance section of our report.

We are required to be independent of the City and to meet our other ethical responsibilities, in accordance with relevant ethical requirements relating to our audit. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our opinion on compliance for the City’s TDA Program. Our audit does not provide a legal determination of the City’s compliance with the compliance requirements referred to above.
17 City Council/RSA Agenda 315 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 To the Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
of the City of Union City
Union City, California

Page 2 ends

Auditors’ Responsibilities for the Audit of Compliance
Our objectives are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether material noncompliance with the compliance requirements referred to above occurred, whether due to fraud or error, and express an opinion on the City’s compliance based on our audit. Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance but is not absolute assurance and therefore is not a guarantee that an audit conducted in accordance with GAAS, Government Auditing Standards, and the Section 6666 and 6667 of the Rules and Regulations of the California Administrative Code in the Transportation Development Act Statutes and Administrative Code for 1987 (the Act) and the allocation instructions and resolutions of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission will always detect material noncompliance when it exists. The risk of not detecting material noncompliance resulting from fraud is higher than for that resulting from error, as fraud may involve collusion, forgery, intentional omissions, misrepresentations, or the override of internal control.

Noncompliance with the compliance requirements referred to above is considered material if there is a substantial likelihood that, individually or in the aggregate, it would influence the judgment made by a reasonable user of the report on compliance about the City’s compliance with the requirements of the TDA Program as a whole.

In performing an audit in accordance with GAAS, Government Auditing Standards, and the Section 6666 and 6667 of the Rules and Regulations of the California Administrative Code in the Transportation Development Act Statutes and Administrative Code for 1987 (the Act) and the allocation instructions and resolutions of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, we:
 Exercise professional judgment and maintain professional skepticism throughout the audit.  Identify and assess the risks of material noncompliance, whether due to fraud or error, and design and perform audit procedures responsive to those risks. Such procedures include examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the City’s compliance with the compliance requirements referred to above and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.
 Obtain an understanding of the City’s internal control over compliance relevant to the audit in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances and to test and report on internal control over compliance in accordance with the Section 6666 and 6667 of the Rules and Regulations of the California Administrative Code in the Transportation Development Act Statutes and Administrative Code for 1987 (the Act) and the allocation instructions and resolutions of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of City’s internal control over compliance. Accordingly, no such opinion is expressed.
18 City Council/RSA Agenda 316 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 To the Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
of the City of Union City
Union City, California

Page 3 ends

Report on Internal Control Over Compliance
A deficiency in internal control over compliance exists when the design or operation of a control over compliance does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of the Section 6666 and 6667 of the Rules and Regulations of the California Administrative Code in the Transportation Development Act Statutes and Administrative Code for 1987 (the Act) and the allocation instructions and resolutions of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission on a timely basis. A material weakness in internal control over compliance is a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies in internal control over compliance, such that there is a reasonable possibility that material noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of the Section 6666 and 6667 of the Rules and Regulations of the California Administrative Code in the Transportation Development Act Statutes and Administrative Code for 1987 (the Act) and the allocation instructions and resolutions of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. A significant deficiency in internal control over compliance is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over compliance with a type of compliance requirement of the Section 6666 and 6667 of the Rules and Regulations of the California Administrative Code in the Transportation Development Act Statutes and Administrative Code for 1987 (the Act) and the allocation instructions and resolutions of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission that is less severe than a material weakness in internal control over compliance, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance.

Our consideration of internal control over compliance was for the limited purpose described in the Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of Compliance section above and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control over compliance that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in internal control over compliance. Given these limitations, during our audit we did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over compliance that we consider to be material weaknesses, as defined below. However, material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in internal control over compliance may exist that were not identified.

Our audit was not designed for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over compliance. Accordingly, no such opinion is expressed. 19 City Council/RSA Agenda 317 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 To the Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
of the City of Union City
Union City, California

Page 4 ends

The purpose of this report on internal control over compliance is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over compliance and the results of that testing based on the requirements of the Section 6666 and 6667 of the Rules and Regulations of the California Administrative Code in the Transportation Development Act Statutes and Administrative Code for 1987 (the Act), and the allocation instructions and resolutions of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Accordingly, this report is not suitable for any other purpose.

Badawi and Associates, CPAs
Berkeley, California
September 19, 2024
20 City Council/RSA Agenda 318 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 Agenda Item
DATE: 9/24/2024
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CARMELA CAMPBELL, ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SUBJECT: HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2023-2024

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL

PERFORMANCE AND EVALUATION REPORT (CAPER) AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT THE 2023-2024 CDBG CAPER TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Staff recommends that the City Council hold a public hearing on the 2023-2024 Community Development Block Grant (“CDBG”) Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (“CAPER”) and adopt a resolution (Attachment 1) approving the 2023- 2024 CAPER (Exhibit A) and authorizing its submittal to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”).

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
This agenda item does not have alignment with a specific goal or strategy but is required to receive Federal Block Grant funds, that support a variety of City programs which support the City’s overall mission to create and provide effective, quality services that foster high quality of life and economic vitality.

BACKGROUND
Union City receives CDBG funding on an annual basis from HUD. In addition, the City of Union City receives HOME Investment Partnership Program (“HOME”) funds annually through participation in the Alameda County HOME Consortium. As part of the requirements to receive this funding, the City must prepare and submit a CAPER to HUD every year. The CAPER describes how CDBG and HOME funded activities addressed the City’s housing and community development needs and compares its accomplishments to the goals the City set in the PY23 (i.e., FY 2023-2024) Annual Action Plan. You can access the PY23 Annual Action Plan at https://www.unioncity.org/DocumentCenter/View/10348/UC-AAP-2023-Draft-6823-update. The CAPER also provides a comprehensive accounting of all CDBG and HOME funds allocated and expended during PY23.

DISCUSSION
City Council/RSA Agenda 319 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 In PY23, the City expended a total of $461,194.07 in CDBG funding and $118,335.67 in CDBG administration funds to cover staff time and consultant time with total expenditures of $579,529.74. The City also supplemented CDBG funds and supported public service programming by expending $240,302.56 in General Fund dollars to support public service programs. In total, the City spent $579,529.74 in CDBG and HOME funds on housing and community development related activities.

Please note that this reporting period includes expenditures of funds allocated in prior program years. This was due to a variety of factors, which are described in more detail. The majority of the PY22 expenditures shown below were due to reimbursement requests submitted late by grant recipients. Where appropriate, staff is working with the various service providers to ensure invoices are submitted in a timely manner to ensure funds are expended in the same program year that they are allocated. See below for an overview of the funds expended.

Service Type Program Year
(PY)
Total CDBG Funding
Expenditure
Public Services 2022 $39,979.05
Public Services 2023 $74,625.98
Micro-Enterprise
Program
2022 $12,345.03
Micro-Enterprise
Program
2023 $20,000.00
Minor Home Repair
Program
2022 $27,684.24
Minor Home Repair
Program
2023 $48,392.58
Public Facilities 2022 $158,935
Public Facilities 2023 $20,406.88
Small Business
Assistance
(CARES Act)
2021 $13,825.31
Homeless Services
(CARES Act)
2020 $45,000
HOME Funds 2023 $0
Total $461,194.07
Administration 2022 $12,397.81
Administration 2023 $105,937.86
City Council/RSA Agenda 320 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 Total $118,335.67
Grand Total $579,529.74
Public Services
The City spent $74,625.98 in PY23 CDBG funds and $240,302.56 in General Fund dollars to support eleven (11) public service programs. See below for an overview of PY23 public service activities and residents served totals that were provided by the service providers. In some instances, the public service providers did not utilize all of their grant funding or submitted invoices late due to staff turnover, which will be accounted for in next year’s CAPER. City staff has been working with these public service providers to understand their issues and work with them to utilize all of their funding and reduce late reimbursement requests.

Organization Program
Funding
Source
Grant
Amount
Grant Expenditure
Amount
# of Union
City
Residents
Served
City of Fremont Senior Support
Services
CDBG $10,000 $10,000 16
ECHO Fair Housing,
Tenant/Landlord
Counseling
CDBG $10,000 $10,000 116
Union City Family
Center
General Social
Services
CDBG $35,000 $35,000 1,579
Safe Alternatives to
Violent
Environment
(SAVE)
Crisis Intervention
for Domestic
Abuse survivors
CDBG $10,000 $4,625.38 39
Spectrum
Community
Services
Senior Health
Initiative
CDBG $15,000 $15,000 116
CDBG Subtotal $80,000 $74,625.98 1,866
Organization Program
Funding
Source
Grant
Amount
Grant Expenditure
Amount
# of Union
City
Residents
Served
Centro de
Servicios - Decoto
General Social
Services
General
Fund
$145,000 $145,000 11,247
Community
Resources for
Independent Living
Housing and
Independent
Living Skills
General
Fund
$10,000 $12,450 47
ECHO Housing Fair Housing, General $20,000 $18,990.73 116 City Council/RSA Agenda 321 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 Tenant/Landlord
Counseling
Fund
Immigration
Institute of the Bay
Area
Legal Services for
Immigrants
General
Fund
$10,000 $5,000 105
LegalAssistance
for Seniors
Legal Services General
Fund
$10,000 $10,000 27
Safe Alternatives to
Violent
Environment
(SAVE)
Youth Services
Program
General
Fund
$5,000 $3,861.83 932
SOS Meals on
Wheels (formerly
LIFE Eldercare)
Senior Meals
services
General
Fund
$15,000 $15,000 143
Tiburcio Vasquez
Health Center
Health Center General
Fund
$20,000 $20,000 1,373
General Fund Subtotal $245,000 $240,302.56 13,990
The table above also shows approximately $40,000 in expenditures associated with activities that took place in PY 22. This was due to public service providers submitting their invoices late and the City not able to request reimbursement from HUD untilafter the August 31, 2023 deadline.

Microenterprise Assistance
The City spent $20,000 in PY23 to support the Community Child Care Council (4Cs). They provided microenterprise assistance in the form of providing business support, education, technicalassistance, and incentives to help residents launch and operate in-home family childcare businesses. The program was able to assist nine (9) low-income, in-home childcare providers.

The provider also submitted a reimbursement request late for the prior year (PY22), in the amount of $12,345.03, due to some staffing issues which caused submission delays. Last year, City staff discussed the issue of late submission with the service provider, and they were able to submit all of their invoices on time during the current program year and were able to expend all of their funding.

Housing Rehabilitation
The City expended $48,392.58 in CDBG funds to implement the City’s Housing Rehabilitation Program, which provides repair and rehabilitation grants to low-income homeowners. The City contracts with Alameda County, through their Healthy Housing Services program that provides the services for the Minor Home Repair Program. This year the program provided 11 minor home repair grants. Rehabilitation projects included: installation of shower grab bars, repair of subfloors in bathrooms and bedrooms, replacement of existing toilets with ADA toilets, installation of smoke alarms, repair of sealing around windows, repair of front steps, partial roof repair, and replacement of a water heater. The average cost of the repair per home was $4,399.

The City received some late invoices from the service provider. The delays that impacted the service provider have been rectified and they are now submitting invoices in a timely manner and on a quarterly basis. Due to the nature of the program, it does take some time to get residents through the application and approval process in order to start the rehabilitation work and for the residents to provide the necessary paperwork for approval. City staff has been working with the service provider to ensure that they are able to fully utilize their funding allocation. In addition, staff has reduced the CDBG allocation from $100,000 to $70,000 to better align with the numbers of grants the program has historically provided to Union City residents.

Public Facilities
City Council/RSA Agenda 322 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 Old Alvarado/Cesar Chavez Park Capital Improvements
The Old Alvarado/Cesar Chavez Park project was completed in PY23 and includes improvements throughout the park including upgrades to the picnic/BBQ area, installation of ADA compliant outdoor furniture, resurfacing of pathways, and replacement of playground equipment. CDBG funding was utilized to purchase a large portion of the picnic and BBQ equipment, and replacement play structures associated with the project. In PY23, the City also spent $158,935 in CDBG funds on a related component of the park project to replace five deteriorated light post foundations and fixtures.

Charles F. Kennedy Park Improvement Project
The City spent $20,406.88 in CDBG funds to purchase benches and trash enclosures that will be placed throughout Charles F.

Kennedy Park as part of a Park Improvement Project. Public Works staff is currently in the process of bringing on a consultant to start working on the specific design of the project components which include rehabilitating the grounds with new landscaping and irrigation, repair and modification to pedestrian pathways to rehabilitate damaged asphalt and resolve non-ADA compliant grades, rehabilitate and modify existing picnic area and park surfaces, incorporate ADA compliant benches, replace and expand the amphitheater awning, general improvements to Kennedy Center outdoor café amenities, and rehabilitate the Kennedy park parking lot including asphalt resurfacing, modifying pedestrian access points, and resolving non-ADA compliant grades.

The equipment was purchased in advance of the project design being completed in order to expend adequate CDBG funds to allow the City to meet its timeliness expenditure deadline. The CDBG timeliness deadline occurs every year, 60 days prior to the end of the program year, and requires grantees to expend adequate CDBG funds to ensure the balance is no greater than one and one-half (1.5) times its annual allocation. Generally speaking, purchasing equipment for large public facilities projects is the fastest way to expend funds and meet the HUD deadline.

HOME Funding
Tenant Based Rental Assistance
Union City allocated its HOME funds from the Alameda County HOME Consortium to Fremont’s Stay Housed Program, which is a Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) program that assists individuals and families in securing and/or staying housed by providing them with rental subsidies. This program provides rentalassistance for up to 24 months for low-income families at risk of homelessness to help with their long-term housing options. The program also enrolls participants in the self-sufficiency program to help achieve long-term financial stability.

The program only supported one Union City family this year for a total of $4,872 of rental assistance. Due to staffing issues, Fremont staff have not been able to submit an invoice to cover this work and so these funds will be reported in the next CAPER report. City staff reached out to Fremont staff regarding the low participation rates and it appears staffing may have also played a role. Fremont staff provided feedback that they plan on doing additional outreach for the program to work on getting more Union City families into the program. City staff will also work with Fremont staff on a plan to engage other Union City service providers that could help increase referrals to the TBRA program.

In the current Annual Action plan (PY23), City staff reduced the HOME allocation to the TBRA program to reflect the downward trend in participation for City residents in the program as well as to provide more funding for the City’s new Homekey initiative.

Leveraging the City’s HOME funding to the Homekey program allowed the City’s application for a scattered site property project to be selected and be able to provide supportive housing for homeless residents. Staff is finalizing the Homekey agreement with State HCD and our partners.

CARES Act CDBG Funds
Road to Recovery Small Business Assistance Program
The City allocated CARES Act CDBG-CV and CDBG-EN funds to the small business assistance program in order to help businesses that were impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. In total, the City has assisted 26 businesses for a total of $287,867.07 City Council/RSA Agenda 323 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 grant funds expended including approximately $14,000 in the last fiscal year. City staff engaged a consultant to assist on the grant program but ran into some issues with performance and has since taken over in allocating the remaining $80,000 in grant funds. City staff is currently wrapping up the review of additional grant applications, which were delayed, in part, to the delays associated with businesses not providing the required information necessary to complete the application process including documentation that there was no duplication of benefits as required by HUD. Staff anticipates allocating all of the remaining funds by the end of the year.

CAREavan Program
The City submitted a reimbursement for $45,000 in CARES Act funding to support the CAREavan program during the pandemic.

The program provides safe overnight parking to help serve Union City residents who are homeless and living out of their vehicle.

Through an internal audit process, staff identified CARES funding that had not yet been utilized and applied those funds to the program to cover staffing costs. The services were rendered in the 2022 program year and during that year CAREavan supported 92 residents.

Administration
The City spent a total of $118,335.67 in CDBG funding on administration of both the CDBG and HOME programs, which primarily covered staff costs, consultant support and incidental supplies.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no impact to the General Fund as a result of receiving this report. Approval of the CAPER by the City Counciland submittal to HUD is required to receive future CDBG funds.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council hold he public hearing on the 2023-2024 CAPER and adopt the attached resolution (Attachment 1) approving the 2023-2024 CAPER (Exhibit A) and authorizing the City Manager, or their designee, to submit the CAPER to HUD.

Prepared by:

Francisco Gomez Jr., Housing & Community Development Manager Submitted by:

Francisco Gomez Jr., Housing & Community Development Manager ATTACHMENTS:

Description Type
Draft Resolution Resolution
Exhibit A - CAPERFY23-24 Union City Exhibit
City Council/RSA Agenda 324 Tuesday, September 24, 2024

Page 1 of 2 ends

RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-24

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNION CITY APPROVING THE 2023-2024 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK

GRANT (CDBG) CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PERFORMANCE AND

EVALUATION REPORT (CAPER) AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO SUBMIT THE 2023-2024 CDBG CAPER TO THE U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the City receives Community Development Block Grant (“CDBG”) funding on an annual basis from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), and the City receives HOME Investment Partnership Program (“HOME”) funds annually through participation in the Alameda County HOME Consortium; and WHEREAS, as part of the requirements to receive this funding, the City must prepare and submit a Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (“CAPER”) to HUD every year; and
WHEREAS, the CAPER describes how CDBG and HOME funded activities addressed the City’s housing and community development needs and compares its accomplishments to the goals it set in the FY 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan. The CAPER also provides a comprehensive accounting of all CDBG and HOME funds allocated and expended during FY 2023-2024; and WHEREAS, in FY 23-24, the City spent a total of $579,529.74 in CDBG funding; and WHEREAS, the City supplemented CDBG funds by spending $240,302.56 in General Fund dollars to support public service programs; and
WHEREAS, in FY 23-24, the City used CDBG, HOME, and General Fund dollars to support public services programs, a microenterprise assistance program, two capital improvement projects, and a housing rehabilitation program. The City also used CDBG funds for program administration.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Union City does hereby approve the 2023-2024 CAPER, attached hereto as Exhibit A, which is incorporated herein by reference; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Union City does hereby authorize the City Manager, or his or her designee, to submit the CAPER to HUD.

City Council/RSA Agenda 325 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 Resolution No. XXXX-24
CDBG CAPER Report

Page 2 of 2 ends

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Union City at a regular meeting held on the 24th day of September 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:

CAROL DUTRA-VERNACI
Mayor
ATTESTED: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

THAI NAM N. PHAM
City Clerk
KRISTOPHER J. KOKOTAYLO
City Attorney
Attachments

1. Exhibit A – CAPER 2023-2024 Union City
City Council/RSA Agenda 326 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 (CAPER) FY 2023-2024

EXHIBIT A
City Council/RSA Agenda 327 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 Table of Contents
CR-05 - Goals and Outcomes.............................................................................................................................................................. Page 3 CR-10 - Racial and Ethnic composition of families assisted.................................................................................................................. Page 9 CR-15 - Resources and Investments 91.520(a) .................................................................................................................................. Page 10 CR-20 - Affordable Housing 91.520(b) .............................................................................................................................................. Page 13 CR-25 - Homeless and Other Special Needs 91.220(d, e); 91.320(d, e); 91.520(c) ............................................................................... Page 16 CR-30 - Public Housing 91.220(h); 91.320(j) ...................................................................................................................................... Page 21 CR-35 - Other Actions 91.220(j)-(k); 91.320(i)-(j)............................................................................................................................... Page 22 CR-40 - Monitoring 91.220 and 91.230 ............................................................................................................................................. Page 26 CR-45 - CDBG 91.520(c).................................................................................................................................................................... Page 27 CR-58 – Section 3............................................................................................................................................................................. Page 30 City Council/RSA Agenda 328 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 CAPER 3
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
CR-05 - Goals and Outcomes
Progress the jurisdiction has made in carrying out its strategic plan and its action plan. 91.520(a) This could be an overview that includes major initiatives and highlights that were proposed and executed throughout the program year.

In Program Year 2023 (PY23), the City of Union City received a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) entitlement (EN) grant of $557,187 and receipted $108,879 of program income (PI). During PY23, the City was successful in drawing down enough of this funding to meet the timeliness test. This PY23 represents the fourth year of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. During the year, Union City used CDBG funds for various activities that helped benefit low-moderate income people throughout the City. Some of those activities include funding social service programs. Spectrum Community Services received funding for their Senior Nutrition Program, while Safe Alternatives to Violent Environments received funding to run their Crisis Response program to help survivors of domestic violence with crisis intervention services and referrals to safe domestic abuse shelters to avoid homeless. The City used CDBG funding to support Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO) Housing’s fair housing and tenant/landlord counseling programs, as well as the Community Child Care Council (4Cs) of Alameda County to provide microenterprise assistance to in-home childcare providers. The combination of CDBG funding and money leveraged from the City’s General Fund allowed 11 social service providers to receive funding for PY23. The City also allocated CDBG funding to the Alameda County Healthy Homes Department to implement a Minor Home Repair Grant Program. The program provides repair and rehabilitation grants to low income homeowners. 11 minor home repair projects were completed with CDBG funding in PY23. PY21 CDBG funds also supported 2 small businesses in PY23.

Union City is a member of the Alameda County HOME Consortium (“Consortium”). The Consortium consists of the cities of Alameda, Fremont, Hayward, Livermore, Pleasanton, San Leandro, Union City, and the Urban County. As a part of the Consortium, the City receives a HOME allocation each year. For PY23, the City received an allocation of $148,123 in HOME funds. The City allocated $139,647 to the Bay Area Community Services (BACS) reclamation project as a scattered site model for providing housing that would be for the purchase of a single family home in order to rehabilitate it into supportive housing for individuals experiencing homelessness. The allocation was part of a multi jurisdictional application between BACS, the city of Hayward, and Union City to submit a scattered site model application for the State Homekey program to help expand housing for the homeless. Our application received a conditional Homekey award from the round 3 NOFA in the amount of $9,677,000. The ability to leverage the City’s HOME funding was a key part of submitting a successful application.

In PY23, City allocated $425,923 as part of a 1st phase of the public facilities project at Charles F. Kennedy Park. The project was identified to undertake design and construction/rehabilitation services to make improvements throughout the park and adjoining park parking lot. The DRAFT
City Council/RSA Agenda 329 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 CAPER 4
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
improvements consist of the renovation of the grounds, pathways, playgrounds and resolve non-ADA compliance issues in play areas and picnic areas. The project has faced some unanticipated delays and was still in the process of selecting a design architect and general contractor for the different stages of the project. Due to delays, the City ended up completing a minor amendment to the FY23-24 Annual Action Plan in order to reallocate some funding from the Kennedy Park project to another public facilities project known as the Old Alvarado/Cesar Chavez Park Improvement (OACCP) project. $158,935 was reallocated from the Kennedy project to the OACCP project in order to cover some unanticipated work and expenses on the project. Kennedy Park project has $267,018 in CDBG funding for rehab and renovations.

Comparison of the proposed versus actual outcomes for each outcome measure submitted with the consolidated plan and explain, if applicable, why progress was not made toward meeting goals and objectives. 91.520(g) Categories, priority levels, funding sources and amounts, outcomes/objectives, goal outcome indicators, units of measure, targets, actual outcomes/outputs, and percentage completed for each of the grantee’s program year goals.

Goal Category Source /
Amount
Indicator Unit of
Measure
Expected
–
Strategic
Plan
Actual –
Strategic
Plan
Percent
Complete
Expected
–
Program
Year
Actual –
Program
Year
Percent
Complete
Fund
Economic
Development
Non-Housing
Community
Development
CDBG: $
Facade
treatment/business
building
rehabilitation
Business 0 0 0 0
Fund
Economic
Development
Non-Housing
Community
Development
CDBG: $ Jobs
created/retained Jobs 40 0 0.00%
Fund
Economic
Development
Non-Housing
Community
Development
CDBG: $ Businesses assisted
Businesses
Assisted
0 11 8 11

137.50%
DRAFT
City Council/RSA Agenda 330 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 CAPER 5
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Improve
Public
Facilities
Non-Housing
Community
Development
CDBG: $
Public Facility or
Infrastructure
Activities other
than
Low/Moderate
Income Housing
Benefit
Persons
Assisted
2 13350

667,500.00%
1290 13350

1,034.88%
Increase
Availability of
Supportive
Housing
Affordable
Housing
CDBG: $ /
HOME
Consortium:
$
Public service
activities for
Low/Moderate
Income Housing
Benefit
Households
Assisted
50 0 0.00%
Increase
Availability of
Supportive
Housing
Affordable
Housing
CDBG: $ /
HOME
Consortium:
$
Tenant-based
rental assistance /
Rapid Rehousing
Households
Assisted
100 1 1.00%
Increase
Availability of
Supportive
Housing
Affordable
Housing
CDBG: $ /
HOME
Consortium:
$
Other Other 0 0 6 0

0.00%
Promote
Production,
Rehabilitation,
and Preservati
Affordable
Housing
CDBG: $
Homeowner
Housing
Rehabilitated
Household
Housing
Unit
50 11 22.00% 10 11

110.00%
Reduce
Homelessness
Homeless
CDBG: $ /
General
Fund:
$10000
Homelessness
Prevention
Persons
Assisted
100 2 2.00% 10 2

20.00%
DRAFT
City Council/RSA Agenda 331 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 CAPER 6
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Reduce
Housing
Discrimination
Affordable
Housing
CDBG: $
Public service
activities other
than
Low/Moderate
Income Housing
Benefit
Persons
Assisted
0 116 0 116
Reduce
Housing
Discrimination
Affordable
Housing
CDBG: $
Public service
activities for
Low/Moderate
Income Housing
Benefit
Households
Assisted
100 0 0.00% 125 0

0.00%
Support Public
Service
Programs
Non-Housing
Community
Development
CDBG: $
Public service
activities other
than
Low/Moderate
Income Housing
Benefit
Persons
Assisted
1750 1750 100.00% 815 1750

214.72%
Table 1 - Accomplishments – Program Year & Strategic Plan to Date DRAFT City Council/RSA Agenda 332 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 CAPER 7
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Assess how the jurisdiction’s use of funds, particularly CDBG, addresses the priorities and specific objectives identified in the plan, giving special attention to the highest priority activities identified.

The PY23 activities addressed the priority goals set forth in the City's 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. The Consolidated Plan focused on the following goals:

1. Promote Production, Rehabilitation, and Preservation of Affordable Housing • The Minor Home Repair Grant program provided repair and rehabilitation grants to 11 low income homeowners.

2. Reduce Housing Discrimination
• ECHO Fair Housng assisted 116 Union City residents by providing fair housing services for tenants and landlords including mediation and counseling services, fair housing tests, and education/outreach.

3. Reduce Homelessness
• Unfortunately, Abode Services did not submit an application for the City’s CDBG NOFA this year as they normally have in years past. In speaking with staff this was due to staff turnover within the agency. So the City looked towards its CAREavan program to directly help residents experiencing homelessness and provide them with safe overnight parking through its program. 92 Union City residents were served by providing safe overnight parking, access to case management and other County health services, and housing search services to homeless adults and children. 2 participants were able to be transitioned to temporary housing.

4. Increase Availability of Supportive Housing
• The City assisted residents who have been struggling financially due to the COVID-19 pandemic through its Residential Rental Assistance Program by providing rental assistance payments on residents behalf in order to keep them housed through the use of CARES Act funds.

In PY23, the program was not able to provide assistance to residents due to some delays in receipt of application documentation and outreach but the application review is ongoing and staff is endeavoring to help residents with rental assistance by December 2024. • The City received a conditional State HCD Homekey award during the program year in the amount of $9,677,000 that will go towards the scattered site model approved by State HCD for the purchase of a single family home to provide supportive housing for individuals DRAFT
City Council/RSA Agenda 333 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 CAPER 8
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
experiencing homelessness. The City is hoping to finalize all agreements by the Fall of 2024 in order to house at least 4 homeless residents in the home.

5. Improve Public Facilities
• The City funded 1 public facility improvement project in PY23, the public facilities capital improvement project at Charles F. Kennedy park. The allocation was the initial allocation to the project in order to utilize CDBG funds to complete the design, construction, and rehabilitation services for the parks improvements.

6. Support Public Service Programs
• The Union City Family Center assisted 1,579 residents by providing services such as providing emergency food, health insurance enrollment, on-site social services, referrals, information, etc... through family liaisons at every school site in the New Haven Unified School District.
• Safe Alternatives to Violent Environments (SAVE) assisted 39 residents with crisis intervention services who were dealing with violence and domestic abuse.
• City of Fremont-Senior Support program provided Older Adult Supportive services for 16 seniors in PY23. Spectrum Community Services provided free meals and services to 116 seniors in PY23. • CAREavan program provided safe overnight parking for 92 homeless families and individuals living in their cars.

7. Fund Economic Development
• 4Cs of Alameda County provided support to 9 residents operating family childcare businesses. • 2 small businesses were supported through PY21 CDBG funded Road to Recovery program.

DRAFT
City Council/RSA Agenda 334 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 CAPER 9
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
CR-10 - Racial and Ethnic composition of families assisted Describe the families assisted (including the racial and ethnic status of families assisted). 91.520(a) CDBG
White 663
Black or African American 160
Asian 695
American Indian or American Native 13
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 32
Total 1,563
Hispanic 457
Not Hispanic 1,106
Table 2 – Table of assistance to racial and ethnic populations by source of funds Narrative
In PY23, the City was able to serve 1,563 persons through the CDBG program who were very diverse population of residents with the help of its service providers and looks to continue to do that in the upcoming program year. A breakdown of all persons assisted, by demographic, is included in the table above. The total 1,563 served in PY23 includes economic development efforts, fair housing efforts, and public services. The table above does not show Other/Multi-Racial beneficiaries, which totaled 182 persons, 6 of which were Hispanic. The City was also able to leverage its General Fund and was able to serve 13,990 City residents.

DRAFT

City Council/RSA Agenda 335 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 CAPER 10
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
CR-15 - Resources and Investments 91.520(a)
Identify the resources made available
Source of Funds Source Resources Made Available Amount Expended During Program Year
CDBG public - federal 877,402 579,529
General Fund public - local 245,000 245,000
Other public - federal 148,123 0
Table 3 - Resources Made Available
Narrative
In PY23, the City received a CDBG entitlement grant of $557,187. Combining the entitlement amount with $108,879.99 in program income received in PY22, the City had a total of $666,066.99 available to spend. For PY23, the City has currently drawn $579,529.74 in CDBG funding.

During PY20 the City received a CARES Act CDBG-CV allocation of $779,418. The City is currently using this funding to administer programs that assist its residents during the ongoing COVID-19 health crisis.

The City has been successful in expending enough of their funds to meet the annual timeliness test over the past few years. In PY23, the City was successful again in meeting HUD’s timeliness test.

In PY23, the City had $148,123 available in HOME funds for the BACS Project Reclamation project and due to the delay in receiving the standard agreement from State HCD for the Homekey program, we were not able to expend any funds in the program period. The City hopes to expend those funds by the end of Fall 2024. The City also leveraged $245,000 in General Fund dollars to support nine (9) public service programs.

DRAFT
City Council/RSA Agenda 336 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 CAPER 11
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Identify the geographic distribution and location of investments Target Area Planned Percentage of
Allocation
Actual Percentage of
Allocation
Narrative Description
City-wide 100 100
All CDBG-funded programs are implemented on a City wide basis.

Table 4 – Identify the geographic distribution and location of investments Narrative
The City of Union City allocated all of its allocation towards city-wide activities. DRAFT City Council/RSA Agenda 337 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 CAPER 12
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Leveraging
Explain how federal funds leveraged additional resources (private, state and local funds), including a description of how matching requirements were satisfied, as well as how any publicly owned land or property located within the jurisdiction that were used to address the needs identified in the plan.

The City leveraged over $384,000 in other federal and local funds to support public services and rental assistance support. This includes $245,000 of money from the Union City General fund and $139,647 of HOME funding.

In addition to leveraging HOME and General Fund dollars, the City allowed several public service providers to operate programs out of City-owned facilities. More specifically, the City owns the Decoto and Alvarado Resource centers where Centro de Servicios operates their programs. Spectrum Community services also provided services out of the City’s Ruggieri Senior Center. DRAFT City Council/RSA Agenda 338 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 CAPER 13
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
CR-20 - Affordable Housing 91.520(b)
Evaluation of the jurisdiction's progress in providing affordable housing, including the number and types of families served, the number of extremely low-income, low-income, moderate-income, and middle-income persons served.

One-Year Goal Actual
Number of Homeless households to be provided affordable housing units 0 0
Number of Non-Homeless households to be provided
affordable housing units 25 0
Number of Special-Needs households to be provided
affordable housing units 0 0
Total 25 0
Table 5 – Number of Households
One-Year Goal Actual
Number of households supported through Rental Assistance 5 3 Number of households supported through The Production of New Units 0 0
Number of households supported through Rehab of Existing Units 25 11
Number of households supported through Acquisition of
Existing Units 0 0
Total 30 14
Table 6 – Number of Households Supported
DRAFT
City Council/RSA Agenda 339 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 CAPER 14
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Discuss the difference between goals and outcomes and problems encountered in meeting these goals.

The City contracted with the Alameda County Healthy Homes Department to administer the Minor Home Repair Grant Program in PY23. The program provides repair and rehabilitation grants to low income homeowners to ensure that they are able to maintain and stay in their home.

The City funded this program with CDBG funds. This year the program had a goal to complete 25 minor home repair projects and completed 11 projects. There were a number of projects that were held in the queue due to needing additional paperwork from the homeowners to finalize their applications.

The City also used multiple funding sources to administer rental assistance programs. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City used CDBG and CDBG-CV funding to administer its Residential Rental Assistance Program and was not able to help households in PY23 due to delays in application documentation receipt and outreach. The program is ongoing and is expected to continue to assist more people. The City was able to provide rental assistance through the Tenant Based Rental Assistance program for 1 Union City Resident. The City’s CAREvan program was also able provide assistance to 2 homeless residents who stood at a motel or hotel without an emergency shelter voucher through a different funding source. The City allocated its HOME funding in PY23 to the BACS reclamation project to help leverage its Homekey application and was able to receive a conditional award for its application. The City is working through the execution of a standard agreement with State HCD and will look forward to housing up to 4 residents in the scattered site project.

The City's inclusionary housing policies have been at the core of the City's affordable housing development programs. The elimination of redevelopment agencies in California created a major funding shortfall for affordable housing production, as over $1 billion statewide was lost annually for affordable housing. However, both the City and Alameda County are taking efforts to create/develop new affordable housing funding sources. In November 2016, Alameda County voters passed Measure A1, which provides $580 million for affordable rental and ownership housing. The City has received an allocation of $8.7 million in Measure A1 funding. The City selected a master developer in May 2018 to develop a city-owned site into 81 affordable units. The City will be contributing the land, $6.8 million in City funds, and its $8.7 million allocation of Measure A1 funds to the project. The project has currently submitted an application for Tax Credits and it is estimated this project will begin construction in mid 2025.

Discuss how these outcomes will impact future annual action plans.

The City will continue to adjust the proposed goals and outcomes in future action plans to reflect changes in funding availability.

DRAFT
City Council/RSA Agenda 340 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 CAPER 15
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Include the number of extremely low-income, low-income, and moderate-income persons served by each activity where information on income by family size is required to determine the eligibility of the activity.

Number of Households Served CDBG Actual HOME Actual
Extremely Low-income 9 0
Low-income 1 1
Moderate-income 1 0
Total 11 1
Table 7 – Number of Households Served
Narrative Information
The City will continue to use CDBG funding to serve primarily low-moderate income persons and households. The 1 household assisted with HOME funding were qualified as low-income. DRAFT
City Council/RSA Agenda 341 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 CAPER 16
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
CR-25 - Homeless and Other Special Needs 91.220(d, e); 91.320(d, e); 91.520(c) Evaluate the jurisdiction’s progress in meeting its specific objectives for reducing and ending homelessness through:

Reaching out to homeless persons (especially unsheltered persons) and assessing their individual needs
HOME Consortium jurisdictions continued their outreach to unsheltered persons in FY 23/24 while dealing with the remnants of the COVID pandemic. Funding from the State’s Project Roomkey program has made more than 1,000 hotel rooms available for homeless and at-risk households in response to COVID-19.

Union City
In January 2024, Alameda County conducted a point in time homeless count which covered every census tract in Alameda County. The 2024 Count utilized volunteers and homeless guides to help identify those who were unsheltered. In the weeks following the 2024 Count, an in-depth survey was administered to a sample of unsheltered and sheltered homeless individuals, in order to profile their experience and characteristics. The 2024 Count recorded 9,450 people experiencing homelessness the morning of January 25, 2024, of which 6,343 or 67% are unsheltered. This represents a 11% decrease in the number of homeless people countywide compared to the 2022 Count. More specifically, the 2024 Count found that there were 190 unsheltered homeless individuals and zero sheltered individuals in Union City, which represents a 61% decrease in the number of homeless people compared to the 2022 Count. The 2024 Count helps give the City and County a better understanding of the demographics and needs of those experiencing homelessness, so that resources can be allocated more effectively. The full report can be found at Alameda Point-in-Time Count Result | https://everyonehome.org/main/continuum-ofcare/point-in-time-count-2024/.

The Coordinated Entry System (CES) was launched countywide in November 2017. CES provides a standardized, countywide system to connect people experiencing homelessness to the resources available in a community. The purpose of CES is to ensure that all people who are homeless or who are experiencing a housing crisis that is likely to lead to homelessness are quickly identified, assessed and connected to housing (emergency shelters, transitional housing, rapid rehousing, and permanent supportive housing) and other assistance based on their needs and the availability of resources. CES includes a call center operated through 211, housing resource centers that disbursed throughout the County, and a standardized intake/assessment screening tool.

EveryOne Home is a community-based organization that serves as Alameda County’s Continuum of Care (CoC). EveryOne Home coordinates local efforts to address homelessness. Everyone Home and he HOME DRAFT
City Council/RSA Agenda 342 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 CAPER 17
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Consortium jurisdictions continued their outreach to the homeless in a number of significant ways over the last year.

There are a number of mobile health services for the homeless that have the ability to travel to the persons who need their assistance. The Abode HOPE Program provides mobile medical and social services for homeless individuals. The program operates a mobile health van in South and East Alameda County. The program also has street outreach and support specialists. The Tri-City Health Center launched a mobile health program in June 2019 that provides free health services for homeless and those at risk of homelessness called the HealthCare Express. The Alameda County Health Care for the Homeless (ACHCH) in collaboration with the Alameda Health System (AHS) provides a mobile clinic and provides urgent care, care coordination, linkage and referrals to community resources. Staff includes a medical provider, medical assistant, social worker, registration clerk, and van driver that work to provide friendly and accessible care to those who need it most.

Addressing the emergency shelter and transitional housing needs of homeless persons As mentioned, the majority of the County’s homeless population continues to be unsheltered (67% as of the 2024 Point In Time Count (PIT)). Only 3,107 or 33% of the County’s homeless population is sheltered.

This represents a 19% increase in people experiencing homelessness. Currently, the County’s homeless system is under resourced to meet the increasing homeless population. The strategy for meeting this growing need is to utilize the Coordinated Entry System to try and resolve a person’s homelessness more quickly, especially in transitional housing, so that each bed is used to support multiple people throughout the year. The final draft of the PIT report has not yet been made available to see if there have been changes to the use of vehicles to help provide shelter for homeless individuals.

As a response to a growing number of homeless and displaced families in Union City, the City launched the CAREavan Safe Parking Program in June 2016 in collaboration with Union City Family Center and local community and faith-based organizations. The CAREavan Program provides families and individuals that are living in their vehicle’s a safe place to park overnight. All participating sites provide safe parking, a facility attendant, and restrooms. Additionally, some sites provide showers and toiletries, food, clothing, meal service, free Wi-Fi, and laundry. The City allocates approximately $80,000 in General Fund dollars to cover the cost of a facility attendants for the program. On average, there are 35 to 40 households utilizing the program on any given night. In PY23, the CAREavan program was able to assist 92 active clients through the program.

To help bolster the CAREavan Program, the City has allocated more funding to the program. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City received an allocation of CARES Act funding. Approximately $120,473 of this funding has been allocated to the CAREavan Program. The City has previously allocated $60,000 of its 2020-2021 CDBG entitlement funding to the program in its 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan.

The City has been approved for other funding sources through Alameda County like Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention (HHAP) Grant and Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Program to help fund the CAREavan program along with General Funds from the City.

DRAFT
City Council/RSA Agenda 343 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 CAPER 18
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Helping low-income individuals and families avoid becoming homeless, especially extremely low-income individuals and families and those who are: likely to become homeless after being discharged from publicly funded institutions and systems of care (such as health care facilities, mental health facilities, foster care and other youth facilities, and corrections programs and institutions); and, receiving assistance from public or private agencies that address housing, health, social services, employment, education, or youth needs The CoC is working with a number of publicly funded institutions of care to ensure that persons are not discharged into homelessness. The realignment housing program has housing specialists who work with persons in the County jail on their housing needs prior to their release date and is funded by Alameda County Probation Department to rapidly rehouse those who are or could become homeless. The CoC also participated actively in the Youth Transitions Planning partnership funded by Health and Human services (HHS) to ensure that no transitional age youth aging out of foster care exits to homelessness.

The partnership works to coordinate the foster care and McKinney funded housing resources to ensure youth do not fall out of housing.

Alameda County is a “housing first” continuum of care. All funded programs prioritize finding clients permanent housing as quickly as possible without any clinical pre-conditions, such as sobriety, medication compliance or utilizing a shelter or transitional housing program first. The CoC continues to expand Rapid Rehousing (RRH) and Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) throughout the county.

In 2017, the City also adopted an eviction and harassment protection ordinance and a rent review ordinance to help provide protections to tenants who are facing unfair or unjust rent increases or evictions. Additionally, the City of Union City has used General Fund and CDBG funding to support a wide range of public service nonprofits that provide safety net services to help prevent low income individuals and families avoid homelessness. The Centro de Servicios provides legal services, food distribution, immigration counseling, and referral services. ECHO Housing provides tenant/landlord counseling and mediation which helps residents avoid evictions, extend termination notices, and negotiate reduced rent increases. Spectrum Community Services provides meals and health/mental health services to low and extremely low-income seniors. Union City Family Center operates a family resource center that provides emergency food, clothing, health insurance enrollment, on-site social services, referrals, information, etc. The City will also look to utilize additional pots of funding from its Cannabis Community Benefits fund in order to further support our emergency shelter networks to help them engage and serve homeless residents of Union City.

Helping homeless persons (especially chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth) make the transition to permanent housing and independent living, including shortening the period of time that individuals and families experience homelessness, facilitating access for homeless individuals and families to affordable housing units, and preventing individuals and families who were recently homeless from becoming homeless again
DRAFT
City Council/RSA Agenda 344 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 CAPER 19
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
The CoC continues to refine its Housing Crisis Response System in Alameda County that prevents homelessness whenever possible, provides dignified homeless safety net services, and maintains people in permanent homes with ongoing subsidies and services. Coordinated Entry is the front door and central organizing feature of the Housing Crisis Response System. Coordinated Entry provides a standard and transparent way for the Housing Crisis Response System to effectively identify people in Alameda County who are experiencing a housing crisis and assess their needs, then prioritize and match them to the most supportive services and housing programs for which they are eligible. To do this, EveryOne Home manages a Countywide By-Name-List, which is maintained in HMIS and governed by all applicable privacy and security policies. The BNL is the CoC’s primary focus for bringing an end to chronic homelessness. Housing navigation, emergency shelter, transitional housing, rapid-rehousing, and tenancy sustaining services are also matched to the highest priority household based on need, length of time homeless, and other vulnerability factors.

The HOME Consortium has also expanded resources for families experiencing homelessness and this can be seen as the number of homeless families has decreased despite the overall increase in homelessness in Alameda County. In 2013, 462 family households were homeless; this has declined to 170 households in 2019. One major shift that took effect during this reporting period was to convert a scattered site transitional housing program that served 47 families per year to Rapid Rehousing, which allows the program to step-down the rental subsidy amount gradually over time, allowing the subsidy funds to be spread over more families, doubling the program’s annual capacity. Providers within the Consortium have also been awarded funds to rehouse homeless families on TANF using money from the State of California award to the County Social Service Agency. ESG funds and County general funds are also assisting families.

The City received a grant from Alameda County to pay for a part time housing navigator from Abode Services to help the City’s CAREavan clients transition to permanent housing. The housing navigator provides case management services and help clients get connected to other resources. The City also received a $200,000 grant from the State Homeless Emergency Aid Program (HEAP) to further support the CAREavan program’s operating expenses and provide additional services such as a mobile hygiene unit at sites without showers and washer/dryers as well as an emergency aid fund.

To continue the CAREavan Program, the City has allocated CDBG funding to the program. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City received an allocation of CARES Act funding. Approximately $120,473 of this funding has been allocated to the CAREavan Program. The City also previously allocated $60,000 of its 2020-2021 CDBG entitlement funding to the program in its 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. The City has been approved for additional funding sources to help with homeless services through Alameda County like Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention (HHAP) Grant in the amount of $122,203 and Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Program in the amount of $253,935 to help fund the CAREavan program along with General Funds from the City. The City is currently working with the Office of Homeless Care and Coordination of Alameda County for an additional round of HHAP funding to continue to support the City’s CAREavan program and expand the resources that it is able to provide to homeless individuals. The City is looking at ways to provide additional support through its Cannabis DRAFT
City Council/RSA Agenda 345 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 CAPER 20
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Community Benefits Fund to find long terms solutions to fight homelessness.

There is also collaboration with Operation Vets Home to end veteran homelessness.

DRAFT
City Council/RSA Agenda 346 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 CAPER 21
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
CR-30 - Public Housing 91.220(h); 91.320(j)
Actions taken to address the needs of public housing
The City consults with the Housing Authority of the County of Alameda (HACA) to inform the Consolidated Plan and Strategic Plan. The Housing Authority of the County of Alameda (HACA) is a public agency that provides various housing programs throughout Alameda County. HACA also provides housing and administers the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCVP) and the Section 8 Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) Voucher Program. Over 7,000 families and 3,500 housing owners participate in the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCVP) administered by HACA.

HACA also currently administers over 300 VASH Vouchers. The City currently has 797 vouchers being used by Union City residents. The City will continue to coordinate with HACA as the regional housing authority and public housing provider whenever possible.

Actions taken to encourage public housing residents to become more involved in management and participate in homeownership
HACA promotes sufficiency and asset development of resident families and individuals by encouraging participants in the HCV program to sign up for the Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) Program. The FSS Program is a partnership between low income families on the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program and the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This five-year program helps families who are receiving rental assistance move to economic independence. These programs continued in PY23.

Actions taken to provide assistance to troubled PHAs
The Housing Authority of the County of Alameda is not currently troubled, nor has it been in recent years. DRAFT
City Council/RSA Agenda 347 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 CAPER 22
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
CR-35 - Other Actions 91.220(j)-(k); 91.320(i)-(j)
Actions taken to remove or ameliorate the negative effects of public policies that serve as barriers to affordable housing such as land use controls, tax policies affecting land, zoning ordinances, building codes, fees and charges, growth limitations, and policies affecting the return on residential investment. 91.220 (j); 91.320 (i) The City took the following actions to remove or ameliorate the negative effects of public policies that serve as barriers to affordable housing:
• Continued to implement the City's Affordable Housing Ordinance which requires developers to provide 15% of total units as below market rate (BMR) or provide an in-lieu fee. This ordinance applies to all residential developments. The City also continued to support its existing BMR units. • The City amended the Affordable Housing Ordinance in order to maximize the City’s ability to provide affordable housing.
• The City’s Housing Element includes goals, policies and implementation programs that support the development of affordable housing.
• The City continued to support the rehabilitation of existing housing stock by providing funding to the Minor Home Repair Grant Program.
• The City continued to investigate potential sources of funding for affordable housing. • The City continued to reduce government and public infrastructure constraints to affordable housing development through administrative support and intergovernmental cooperation.

Actions taken to address obstacles to meeting underserved needs. 91.220(k); 91.320(j) The main obstacle the City faces in meeting underserved needs is a lack of funding for public services. In order to better leverage and utilize existing funding, the City completed an updated Public Services Needs Assessment Study in FY 22-23. The goals of the Study were to 1) form a foundation from which the City can make effective and beneficial decisions regarding the funding, provisions, and operations of local public service providers and 2) provide a priority needs map that can guide the City in future decisions about where to obligate public services funding and efforts. By strategically allocating resources, the City’s goals are to not just improve services for those in need but help raise the quality of life for the whole community through a commitment to fiscal responsibility and transparency. The components of the Study include a community survey, stakeholder meetings/interviews, and demographic review in order to analyze what types of services residents are looking for now. The Study was finalized in March 2023 and was used to inform the grant allocation process. The full Study can be found at the following link https://www.unioncity.org/DocumentCenter/View/10486/2023-NeedsAssessment-City-of-Union-City---FINAL-6523.

Actions taken to reduce lead-based paint hazards. 91.220(k); 91.320(j) Although the City of Union City does not have a lead-based paint reduction program at this time, all DRAFT
City Council/RSA Agenda 348 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 CAPER 23
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
federally required protocol in the identification and amelioration of lead-based paint hazards are followed as part of its Minor Home Repair Grant program. See Alameda County LEAD Program update for actions to reduce lead-based paint hazards.

Actions taken to reduce the number of poverty-level families. 91.220(k); 91.320(j) The City seeks to support programs and policies that are designed to effectively reduce poverty and promote self-sufficiency. Support was given to those public services that specifically address the systemic roots of poverty within the community, such as unemployment, addiction, and illiteracy.

Through CDBG and other available funding, the City will continue to support those programs that:
• Provide job training
• Provide new, well-paying jobs
• Break the cycle of drug and alcohol dependency
• Provide needed childcare for low income families
• Provide needed skills to increase the independence of emotionally or physically disabled individuals For example, this year the City provided funding to 4C’s of Alameda County which provides microenterprise assistance to low income residents seeking to start and operate in-home childcare businesses. This provides business opportunities and job training for low income individuals while also increasing the number of childcare providers in the City. Also, through leveraging the City’s General Fund, different service providers for the City provide job training opportunities, resume building, and other training opportunities for low income individuals and families.

Actions taken to develop institutional structure. 91.220(k); 91.320(j) The City's departments work openly and efficiently together to further the City's goals. The City also works with social service agencies, for profit and non-profit developers, other cities, the County of Alameda, the State of California, and the Federal Government to ensure the effective delivery of services to the community. The City also participates in the Alameda County HOME Consortium, EveryOne Home, and the Alameda County Office of Homeless Care and Coordination.

Actions taken to enhance coordination between public and private housing and social service agencies. 91.220(k); 91.320(j)
• The City took following actions to enhance coordination between public and private housing and social service agencies:
• • The City has worked with and continues to work with housing developers to develop extremely- low, very low and low income housing units throughout the City • Continued to participate in the HOME Consortium’s Technical Advisory Committee • Encouraged collaboration and cooperation among local service providers • Continued to participate in EveryOne Home
DRAFT
City Council/RSA Agenda 349 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 CAPER 24
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
• Continued to fund nonprofit agencies serving low income residents • Continued to build and improve relationships with local service providers • Worked with Alameda County’s Healthy Homes Department to provide housing repairs and rehabilitation throughout the community
• Continued to collaborate with the school district and faith-based organizations to operate the CAREavan program
• Continued encouraged collaboration with the Housing Authority of Alameda County (HACA) to look at the development of a parcel owned by HACA in Union City to try and develop affordable housing.

Identify actions taken to overcome the effects of any impediments identified in the jurisdictions analysis of impediments to fair housing choice. 91.520(a) In PY22, the Alameda County HOME Consortium completed an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI). Since the County is in the process of updating its AI for the upcoming CONPLAN, the City took the following actions to meet and address the policies identified in the AI from PY22.

Policy 1: Promote fair housing enforcement and outreach.

Actions: The City will continue to contract with fair housing service providers, increase resident access to fair housing services, and continue to fund housing placement services.

Policy 2: Maintain, improve, and implement local policy that supports affordable housing and fair housing.

Actions: Promote new fair housing laws, periodically review their existing inclusionary housing in-lieu fees and/or housing impact fees and jobs-housing linkage fee programs if applicable, aim to implement the programs described in the Housing Element, continue to incorporate these regional AI goals, continue to prepare a Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) that evaluates the progress towards these Regional AI goals, and work together to continue to commission marketbased surveys of current market-rate rents in the Oakland-Fremont HUD FMR Area.

Policy 3: Promote and implement new fair housing laws that protect recipients of rental subsidies from discrimination by landlords.

Actions: Educate tenants and landlords on new fair housing laws.

Policy 4: Preserve and rehabilitate existing affordable housing stock.

Actions: Participating jurisdictions will provide rehabilitation assistance loans for lower-income units.

Policy 5: Increase the number of affordable housing units.

Actions: Prioritize the production of affordable housing units and continue all existing programs to support development of local affordable housing units.

Policy 6: Increase homeownership among low- and moderate-income households.

DRAFT
City Council/RSA Agenda 350 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 CAPER 25
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Actions: Create a shared list of lenders countywide that can help buyers access below-market-rate loans and locally sponsored down payment and mortgage assistance programs and allocate funds for homeownership programs that support low- and moderate-income households.

Policy 7: Participating jurisdictions will continue to support or will explore new programs that provide financial support for job training programs to lower-income individuals.

Actions: Continue to support or will explore new programs that provide financial support for job training programs and continue to provide financial support for homeless services.

Policy 8: Maintain and expand awareness of affordable housing opportunities and services through marketing efforts.

Actions: Continue to assist in advertising the availability of subsided rental units, explore the creation of a countywide affordable housing database, continue promoting 211’s affordable housing database with current information, and increase marketing efforts of affordable housing units to people that typically face barriers and discrimination in fair housing choice.

Policy 9: Participating jurisdictions will pursue local, state, and federal funding sources as they become available.

Actions: Continue to pursue local, state, and federal funding sources as they become available.

DRAFT
City Council/RSA Agenda 351 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 CAPER 26
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
CR-40 - Monitoring 91.220 and 91.230
Describe the standards and procedures used to monitor activities carried out in furtherance of the plan and used to ensure long-term compliance with requirements of the programs involved, including minority business outreach and the comprehensive planning requirements
The City of Union City monitors its programs to ensure that projects are in compliance with federal regulations and the objectives of the community. The City spells out monitoring requirements in its agreements with nonprofits subgrantees, housing owners, and agreements with other public agencies.

By incorporating performance requirements and reporting procedures, including outlines of specific objectives, timelines and budgets, the City is able to evaluate performance. Procedures for monitoring include:
• Monitoring subgrantee performance reports and request for reimbursements on a quarterly basis • Regular onsite monitoring
• Annual review of audits for continuing subgrantees
• Onsite monitoring of construction progress and labor monitoring (when applicable) and project oversight by City’s Public Works Department, as needed
• Ongoing monitoring of affordable rental projects
• Monitoring of HOME–funded projects
• Ongoing monitoring of affordable ownership units citywide • Review of project expenses
• Housing Element Annual Reports
For PY23, the City conducted CDBG desk reviews of its public service grantees including reviewing quarterly reports submitted by the grantees. The City was not able to conduct onsite monitoring visits due to staffing levels but is in the process of coordinating with all of the Public Service Grantees to go onsite as the impacts of the pandemic have decreased and staff availability has increased. The City has also been developing a monitoring matrix for its HOME program in order to ensure that the City’s properties funded by HOME are in good standing. The City was able to complete an on-site HOME monitoring of Wisteria Place, a HOME funded project. Staff monitored 8 units at Wisteria place. An entrance/staff interview took place to discuss scope and purpose of monitoring, Inspection of the units, an administrative review of the tenant files, and then an exit interview to discuss the results of the monitoring. There was only one concern in the monitoring regarding income document retention for the minimum required number of years. The issue was caused due to staff turnover and lack of file space, but they have implemented the 5-year rule of income documentation maintenance moving forward and had already implemented a 4 yr retention rule. At this point, no findings have been issued.

DRAFT
City Council/RSA Agenda 352 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 CAPER 27
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Citizen Participation Plan 91.105(d); 91.115(d)
Describe the efforts to provide citizens with reasonable notice and an opportunity to comment on performance reports.

A fifteen (15) day public review period for the draft of the 2023 CAPER will be held from August 30, 2024 to September 13, 2024 and the CAPER will be made available on the City's website and copy of the draft was available for review at City Hall. If the City receives comments, they will be incorporated into the CAPER at the end of the public review period.

The City Council will hold a public hearing on the CAPER at their September 24, 2024 meeting and public hearing notice was published in the Tri City Voice.

CR-45 - CDBG 91.520(c)
Specify the nature of, and reasons for, any changes in the jurisdiction’s program objectives and indications of how the jurisdiction would change its programs as a result of its experiences.

The City's goals and priorities specified in the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan guide the City's Annual Action Plan activities. The City has developed internal processes and long-range plans to help maintain timeliness while meeting the other CDBG program objectives.

In PY23, the City of Union City began to feel a reduction in the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. The federal government passed the CARES Act on March 27, 2020 with the purpose of providing emergency economic support for communities in need. The City of Union City received a CARES Act allocation of $779,418 and diligently worked to create and fund programs to get this money to its residents. This led to the creation of the Road to Recovery Small Business Assistance Program which is designed to help small businesses who are struggling financially due to the COVID-19 pandemic. So far, the Road to Recovery Small Business Assistance Program had some challenges providing aide to 2 small businesses in PY23. The business applicants have had some communication issues and some anomalies in their applications that triggered some additional review after discussions with the small business owners. The additional follow up was to ensure that there was not going to be a Duplication of Benefits should an award be made. Due to the additional review time, the awards were made shortly after. Currently the total number of local Union City businesses that were able to be helped is at 30 but that total will increase to 32 with the PY23 CAPER. In PY23, the CARES Act allocation also funded the Residential Rental Assistance Program was not able to provide assistance to residents due to delays in receipt of documentation and outreach issues with applicants but the City intends to continue this program and continue to help residents who have been impacted financially due to the COVID-19 pandemic and have DRAFT
City Council/RSA Agenda 353 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 CAPER 28
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
been unable to pay their rent.

Does this Jurisdiction have any open Brownfields Economic Development Initiative (BEDI) grants?
No
[BEDI grantees] Describe accomplishments and program outcomes during the last year.

N/A
DRAFT
City Council/RSA Agenda 354 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 CAPER 30
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
CR-58 – Section 3
Identify the number of individuals assisted and the types of assistance provided Total Labor Hours CDBG HOME ESG HOPWA HTF
Total Number of Activities 2 0 0 0 0
Total Labor Hours 3,954
Total Section 3 Worker Hours 0
Total Targeted Section 3 Worker Hours 0
Table 8 – Total Labor Hours
Qualitative Efforts - Number of Activities by Program CDBG HOME ESG HOPWA HTF Outreach efforts to generate job applicants who are Public Housing Targeted Workers
Outreach efforts to generate job applicants who are Other Funding Targeted Workers. 1
Direct, on-the job training (including apprenticeships). 1 Indirect training such as arranging for, contracting for, or paying tuition for, off-site training.

Technical assistance to help Section 3 workers compete for jobs (e.g., resume assistance, coaching).

Outreach efforts to identify and secure bids from Section 3 business concerns.

Technical assistance to help Section 3 business concerns understand and bid on contracts.

Division of contracts into smaller jobs to facilitate participation by Section 3 business concerns.

Provided or connected residents with assistance in seeking employment including: drafting resumes,preparing for interviews, finding job opportunities, connecting residents to job placement services.

Held one or more job fairs.

Provided or connected residents with supportive services that can provide direct services or referrals.

Provided or connected residents with supportive services that provide one or more of the following: work readiness health screenings, interview clothing, uniforms, test fees, transportation.

Assisted residents with finding child care.

Assisted residents to apply for, or attend community college or a four year educational institution.

Assisted residents to apply for, or attend vocational/technical training. 1 Assisted residents to obtain financial literacy training and/or coaching.

Bonding assistance, guaranties, or other efforts to support viable bids from Section 3 business concerns.

Provided or connected residents with training on computer use or online technologies.

Promoting the use of a business registry designed to create opportunities for disadvantaged and small businesses. 1
Outreach, engagement, or referrals with the state one-stop system, as designed in Section 121(e)(2) of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act.

Other.

Table 9 – Qualitative Efforts - Number of Activities by Program DRAFT
City Council/RSA Agenda 355 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 CAPER 31
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Narrative
The Old Alvarado/Cesar Chavez public facilities project has been completed. The General Contractor continued with outreach efforts for job applicants for other funding targeted workers and possible Section 3 workers during the completion of the project. The City also completed its posting of the America’s Job Center of California (AJCC) website link on the City’s website for increased accessibility for prospective applicants. Other organizations like Centro de Servicios and Union City Family Center were able to connect residents with supportive services, financial literacy/coaching, and connect residents with computer use or online technologies. The City will also ensure that any new contractors brought on for the Charles F. Kennedy Park Improvement project will adhere to the same Section 3 standards.

DRAFT
City Council/RSA Agenda 356 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 Agenda Item
DATE: 9/23/2024
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JOAN MALLOY, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: RECEIVE ANNUAL REPORT FROM TOWNSEND PUBLIC AFFAIRS ON LEGISLATIVE

ACTIVITIES ON BEHALF OF THE CITYOF UNION CITY
Staff recommends that the City Council receive an annual report from Townsend Public Affairs, Inc. (TPA) on its legislative activities over the past year on behalf of the City of Union City. This is an informational item only, and no further action is needed.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
This item is not identified in the City Council Strategic Plan nor is it directly correlated to a specific priority area.

BACKGROUND
State and federal legislation has the potential to have direct and significant impacts to a city’s fiscal, operational, and environmental stability. On September 12, 2023, City Council authorized the City to enter into a Consulting Services Agreement with TPA for legislative advocacy and grant funding research services via Resolution No. 6200-23. In part, the goal of which is for active legislative engagement to protect and promote the interests of Union City’s constituents.

For this item, TPA will provide a summary of the past legislative year as well as a description of funding successes and potential funding opportunities in the coming year.

DISCUSSION
Over the past year, TPA has engaged on the City’s behalf in Sacramento, Washington, DC, and through the pursuit of grant and earmark funding. Highlights of these efforts include:

Assisting in securing $616,227 in grant and earmark funding for the City.

Planning and leading two advocacy trips to Washington, DC for City Councilmembers.

Advocacy for the protection of key state budget accounts that were proposed to be cut, including the Regional Early Action City Council/RSA Agenda 357 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 Planning 2.0 program ($300 million), Active Transportation Program, and Homeless, Housing Assistance and Prevention (HHAP) Grant Program.

Developing statewide bond proposals with the inclusion of funding for local agency projects in the $10 billion climate bond and housing bond.

Advocacy efforts to support the organized retail theft package, which was signed into law and provides local law enforcement agencies additional tools to curb serial theft occurrences.

Advocacy on behalf of local land use discretion protection via opposition to builders' remedy proposals and industrial land use bills like AB 98.

Below, find summaries of state, federal, and funding activities on the City’s behalf.

STATE
The 2024 California Legislative Session came to a dramatic close just after midnight on Saturday, August 31, as both chambers were engulfed in a flurry of last-minute proposals, political maneuvering, and power plays among leadership in both houses and the Governor’s administration. This adjournment marked the end of the two-year 2023-2024 Legislative Session, which saw over 4,000 bills introduced during its cycle.

While last-minute policy introductions are a common feature of California's legislative process, this session was notable for the unusually high number of bills and amendments introduced just prior to the 72-hour deadline. These last-ditch efforts aimed to make sweeping changes in key areas such as energy policy, industrial land use regulations, and gas pricing, among others.

Adding to the usual end-of-session frenzy, Governor Newsom called a special session just hours before the regular session's end to address new mandates on oil refineries aimed at reducing gas prices. This unexpected move effectively pushes the Legislature into overtime, forcing lawmakers to grapple with the complex and politically sensitive issue of energy affordability just as the campaign season kicks into high gear ahead of the November 5 election. In response, the Assembly convened the special session on Saturday night, as directed by the Governor, while the Senate chose to defy the Governor’s order.

As for the legislative output of the 2024 session, of the 2,525 total bill vehicles introduced this year, nearly 1,500 were passed by the Legislature. As of September 12, Governor Newsom has signed 564 bills into law, vetoed 6, and has 984 bills still awaiting his decision before the September 31 deadline. In his first four years in office, Governor Newsom has vetoed between 7.9% and 16.5% of the bills presented to him annually, often citing insufficient state resources to implement the proposed measures. It is expected that his vetoes from the 2024 session will follow a similar pattern, particularly given the current budget deficit. Most of the statutes signed into law will take effect on January 1, 2025.

As for Union City, the City adopted Support positions for five bills this year. As of September 12, two of those bills have been signed into law, two are on the Governor’s desk awaiting action, and one died in the second house. The City also sought a veto from the Governor for AB 98 (Juan Carrillo), a last-minute measure related to warehouse setbacks. The matrix below provides more details.

Description As of 9/12/24
AB 98 (Carrillo,
J)
Establishes warehouse standards and requires local
agencies to update their circulation elements to include truck routes, among other things.

On Gov’s Desk
AB 1990
(Carrillo, W)
Authorizes a peace officer to arrest a person for shoplifting not committed in the officer’s presence if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed shoplifting.

Dead
AB 2271
(Ortega)
Requires the state to approve the forgiveness of a
Distressed Hospital Loan Program loan for the St. Rose
Hospital in the City of Hayward.

On Gov’s Desk
City Council/RSA Agenda 358 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 AB 2346 (Lee) Revises the organic materials procurement requirements established by SB 1383 (Lara), including authorizing local jurisdictions to invest in specified activities related to organic materials recycling in lieu of procuring recovered organics, expanding the types of products that are eligible for procurement credit, and making other changes to the calculations used to establish procurement credits and
targets.

On Gov’s Desk
SB 905 (Wiener) Creates the new crimes of forcibly entering a vehicle with the intent to commit theft and unlawfully possessing
property acquired through theft from a vehicle with intent to sell where the value of the property possessed exceeds
$950.

Signed into Law
SB 982 (Wahab) Removes the sunset date on the provision of law that criminalizes organized retail theft.

Signed into Law
The conclusion of the 2024 Legislative Session also signals the start of the Interim Recess and the ramp-up to the November 2024 General Election. At least 23 State Assembly seats and 12 State Senate seats are set to be filled by new state representatives, representing over 25% of each house. In relation to Union City’s state representatives, Senator Wahab is not up for election this year while Assembly Member Ortega has a Republican opponent in her race. When the Legislature reconvenes in January 2025 for the start of the 2025-2026 session, a wave of freshman legislators will bring new priorities, leadership styles, and political dynamics to Sacramento.

FEDERAL
Although federal legislative action and policymaking in 2023 was mired in intraparty disputes and uncertainty, this year has seen a return to regular order. As a result, the appropriations process has unfolded in a more traditional manner and while Congress won’t finalize the Fiscal Year 2025 budget by the September 30 deadline, House and Senate leadership are currently working to avoid a government shutdown. The leading proposal would keep the government funded through March 2025 to provide plenty of time to work out differences between the chambers. As expected, the battle for the White House and former-President Trump’s legal issues have dominated attention throughout the year. But other items like the must-pass annual defense authorization bill, components of the Farm Bill, state disaster aid, the Water Resources Development Act, and Medicaid extensions provide opportunity to shape legislation.

While major legislative accomplishments have been lacking, the Supreme Court issued multiple decisions with vast implications for how cities and the federal government operate. The Grants Pass decision permits localities to impose criminal penalties for acts like public camping and public sleeping without violating the Constitution. The Chevron Doctrine ruling ended the longstanding precedent of deferring to regulatory agencies when federal legislation is ambiguous. The full impact and scope of these decisions willcontinue to unfold in years to come.

The City of Union City remains actively engaged in the federal process – conducting multiple advocacy trips to Washington, DC and securing funding wins through the congressional earmark process. Congressman Swalwell sponsored a $250,000 request for the Lazuli Landing Affordable Housing Project, and it is anticipated to be signed into law in early 2025. Looking ahead, there will be no shortage of opportunities to advance city priorities as federal transportation and tax policy will be major legislative items once the balance of power in DC is determined.

FUNDING
Funding Source Project Amount Secured
Cannabis Tax Fund
Grant
"Saturating for Safety in Union City" $148,855
FY25 Federal
City Council/RSA Agenda 359 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 Earmark Lazuli Landing Affordable Housing Project $125,000 DOJ Tobacco
Grant
Tobacco Code Enforcement $342,372*
CalOES
Cybersecurity

TBD TBD
TOTAL $616,227
*pending
In the past twelve months, TPA successfully assisted the City in seeking federalcongressionally directed spending. Through TPA’s advocacy, Congressman Swalwell successfully secured $250,000 in the FY 2025 Appropriations bill for the Lazuli Landing Affordable Housing Project. The federal budget process is continuing, but having the project in the billensures that the funding will be available upon enactment.

In addition, TPA assisted the City in pursuing funding from two grant programs in the past year. First, in late 2023, TPA submitted an application to the Cannabis Tax Fund Grant Program on the City’s behalf for their project called "Saturating for Safety in Union City," which was awarded $148,855 in early 2024. In addition, TPA assisted in the City’s application to the Department of Justice’s Tobacco Grant Program for $342,372 for Tobacco Code Enforcement. That application is still pending, the department is expected to make awards in the fourth quarter of 2024.

This month, TPA is working with City staff to draft and submit a CalOES Cybersecurity grant application, due on September 27.

The details of the grant have not yet been determined, though both TPA and City staff are working hard to compile the necessary information and submit the application prior to the deadline.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact as this is an informational item only.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council receive an annual report from Townsend Public Affairs, Inc. (TPA) on its legislative activities over the past year on behalf of the City of Union City.

Prepared by:

Jennifer Phan, Deputy City Manager
Submitted by:

Jennifer Phan, Deputy City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description Type
City of Union City - 2024 End of Session Overview Attachment City Council/RSA Agenda 360 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 1 M E M O R A N D U M
To: The Honorable Carol Dutra-Vernaci, Mayor of Union City Honorable Union City Council Members
Joan Malloy, City Manager
Jennifer Phan, Deputy City Manager
From: Townsend Public Affairs
Niccolo De Luca, Vice President
Eric Thronson, Director
Alex Gibbs, Grants Director
Joseph Melo, Senior Associate
Date: September 19, 2024
Subject: End of Session Overview
August 2024 marks the end of the 2023-24 Legislative Session. Below find an End of Session Overview wrapping up TPA’s legislative efforts on behalf of the City for the year. Moving forward this year, TPA staff will work with City staff to identify priorities for the next two-year session and strategies to achieve those goals.

HIGHLIGHTS OF ENGAGEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY
• Advocacy for the protection of key budget accounts that were proposed to be cut, including the Regional Early Action Planning 2.0 program ($300 million), Active Transportation Program, and Homeless, Housing Assistance and Prevention (HHAP) Grant Program. • Advocacy on behalf of statewide bond proposals and the inclusion of funding for local agency projects in the $10 billion climate bond and housing bond. • Advocacy efforts to support the organized retail theft package, which was signed into law and provides local law enforcement agencies additional tools to curb serial theft occurrences.
• Advocacy on behalf of local land use discretion protection via opposition to builders' remedy proposals and industrial land use bills like AB 98. 2024 STATE LEGISLATIVE WRAP UP
Overview
The 2024 legislative session came to a dramatic close just after midnight on Saturday, August 31st, as both chambers were engulfed in a flurry of last-minute proposals, political maneuvering, and power plays among leadership in both houses and the Governor’s administration. This adjournment marked the end of the two-year 2023-24 Legislative Session, which saw over 4,000 bills introduced during its cycle.

City Council/RSA Agenda 361 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 2 While last-minute policy introductions are a common feature of California's legislative process, this session was notable for the unusually high number of bills and amendments introduced in the final 72 hours. These last-ditch efforts aimed to make sweeping changes in key areas such as energy policy, industrial land use regulations, and gas pricing, among others.

As for the legislative output of the 2024 session, of the 2,525 total bill vehicles introduced this year, nearly 1,500 were passed by the Legislature. As of September 5, Governor Newsom has signed 550 bills into law, vetoed 5, and has 1001 bills still awaiting his decision before the September 31 deadline. In his first four years in office, Governor Newsom has vetoed between

7.9% and 16.5% of the bills presented to him annually, often citing insufficient state resources to implement the proposed measures. It is expected that his vetoes from the 2024 session will follow a similar pattern, particularly given the current budget deficit. Most of the statutes signed into law will take effect on January 1, 2025.

The conclusion of the 2024 Legislative Session also signals the start of the Interim Recess and the ramp-up to the November 2024 General Election. At least 23 State Assembly seats and 12 State Senate seats are set to be filled by new state representatives, representing over 25% of each house. When the Legislature reconvenes in January 2025 for the start of the 2025-26 session, a wave of freshman legislators will bring new priorities, leadership styles, and political dynamics to Sacramento.

Below is a detailed overview of priority measures and key events from the 2024 Legislative Session, organized by issue area:

Artificial Intelligence
Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a complex and pressing issue for lawmakers, prompting deliberations on the appropriate scope and extent of its regulation. The state has been grappling with the challenge of understanding AI in its entirety, including its potential benefits and the risks it may pose. Until July, the California Privacy Protection Agency had been considering advancing formal rulemaking to regulate automated decision-making technologies—a subset of AI that utilizes inputs to replace human discretionary judgment.

Both the Senate and Assembly have also undertaken efforts to legislate AI through individual bills and hearings. The Senate Judiciary Committee convened a hearing in December focused on the "Importance of Journalism in the Digital Age," examining the interactions between AI and news reporting. Additionally, three of the four Assembly Informational Hearings held this year centered on AI-related topics. Several lawmakers have introduced legislation addressing various aspects of AI regulation, reflecting growing concern and interest in ensuring responsible governance of this rapidly evolving technology. Those proposals included:
• AB 1831 by Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park) criminalizes the creation, distribution, and possession of AI-generated Child Sexual Abuse Material.

City Council/RSA Agenda 362 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 3 • AB 2877 by Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda) would have prohibited AI systems from using the personal information of children to train AI systems without affirmative authorization.
• AB 2930 by Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan would have imposed various regulations on the use of “automated decision systems.”
• SB 1047 by Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) requires developers and trainers of powerful artificial intelligence models to put appropriate safeguards and policies into place to prevent harms.

In August, a deal was cut between tech companies and Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (DOakland) that would dedicate more funding to local journalists and AI developers. The impetus for this deal was a piece of Assemblymember Wicks’s legislation, AB 886, which would have required large internet platforms to pay a portion of their revenues to journalists as compensation for using the journalists’ content on their own platforms and collecting advertising revenue. The deal includes $300 million allocated over five years to fund in-state newsrooms, but the settlement also funds an “AI Innovation Accelerator” program to develop artificial intelligence initiatives. So far, the deal has received mixed reviews from the journalism world, some of whom are concerned about advancing AI that could replace journalism jobs in the future. Others are grateful for the additional funding to in-state journalism.

Bonds
Pivoting away from impacting the state budget, ten different legislators introduced bills this year that would place General Obligation (GO) bonds on the ballot to be approved or rejected by voters.

AB 247 by Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi (D-Torrance) and SB 867 by Senator Ben Allen (DSanta Monica) were the only two measures to make it out of the fray and are now Propositions 2 and 4, respectively, on the November ballot. Prop 2 dedicates $10 billion for public school and community college facilities and Prop 4 issues $10 billion for various climate and environmental protection projects.

The deficit strained the Legislature’s capacity to authorize multiple bonds, so state lawmakers were forced to prioritize which bonds were to advance and also how much should be financed by each proposed bond. By approving bonds for school facilities and environmental protection projects, initiatives that would have funded higher education facilities, flood control, fentanyl prevention, and housing were put on hold. Due to housing being a top priority for the state, many were disappointed that a housing bond was not approved for the ballot.

The two bonds that will be on the November ballot, Propositions 2 and 4, would still have a significant impact on the state’s budget. The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates the cost to pay off Prop 2 would be $500 million per year for 35 years, and $400 million per year for 40 years totaling $33.5 billion over the life of both bonds. Currently, the state is paying about $6 billion per year on debt service for existing bonds, so the drawdown on resources is substantial when weighing which bonds to approve each year.

The following is a breakdown of Props 2 and 4:

Proposition 2: Bonds for Public School and Community College Facilities • $4 billion for the modernization of school facilities, with at least 10% being reserved for small schools and $115 million for testing/remediation of lead in water • $3 billion for new construction of school facilities, with at least 10% being reserved for small school districts
City Council/RSA Agenda 363 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 4 • $1.5 billion for community college facilities
• $600 million for charter school facilities
• $600 million for career technical education programs
Proposition 4: Bonds for Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, and Protecting Communities and Natural Lands from Climate Risks
• $3.8 billion for safe drinking water, drought, flood, and water resilience programs • $1.5 billion for wildfire and forest resilience
• $450 million for extreme heat mitigation
• $1.2 billion for biodiversity programs
• $300 million for sustainable, climate-smart farms and working lands programs • $1.2 billion for coastal resilience programs
• $700 million for park creation and outdoor access
• $850 million for clean air programs
• <$20 million for administrative costs
• Up to 10% of funds within each funding pot must be allocated to severely disadvantaged communities
Budget
Following a couple of years of record surpluses driven by an infusion of federal funding, the state took a turn and started 2024 in a deficit to the tune of approximately $37.8 billion. This immediately put the state legislature on notice of difficult decisions to come, and the Governor directed state agencies to freeze any new spending. After the tax filing deadline in April, the deficit continued to grow as tax revenues came in lower than anticipated bringing the deficit to $46.8 billion. To balance the budget, the state largely leaned on reserves, deferrals, funding delays, and borrowing, and took Early Action in April to adjust spending levels.

In June, the state passed a preliminary version of the budget after the Governor, Senate, and Assembly agreed on an overall budget plan that compiled input from the Department of Finance and Legislative Budget Subcommittees. At stake over the course of the budget negotiations was funding for core local government programs like Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention (HHAP), Regional Early Action Planning (REAP), Active Transportation Program (ATP), and Multifamily Housing Program (MHP). These programs received some adjustments or cuts, however, were overall still maintained in the final budget, due in large part to the advocacy of local agencies.

Based on updated revenue estimates and potential impacts on future spending that came in after the budget was passed, the Legislature put together several trailer bills and budget bill “juniors” for routine implementation of the budget. These additional bills ranged in subject area from healthcare, energy, education, and natural resources, and some were passed as late as the last day of Session. Despite revenue fluctuations and overall volatility, the state still met its constitutional obligation to pass a balanced budget.

Behavioral Health and Homelessness
Proposition 1 Rollout
As has been the case in most recent legislative sessions, this year also featured a major focus on behavioral health reforms and homelessness prevention. However, most actions this year City Council/RSA Agenda 364 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 5 centered on the rollout of Proposition 1 funds and regulatory and legal actions related to encampment sweeping.

Proposition 1 was the only statewide initiative for voter consideration in the March Primary Election. During the 2023 Legislative Session, the Legislature approved AB 531 (Irwin) and SB 326 (Eggman) which comprised a package of reforms to the State’s behavioral health care continuum. Specifically, AB 531 authorized $6.38 billion in general obligation bonds to finance permanent supportive housing and behavioral health treatment settings for individuals experiencing homelessness and behavioral health challenges. Notably, the measure contains a $1.5 billion set aside specifically for cities and counties. SB 326 complemented the capital project development goals of AB 531 by revising the Mental Health Services Act (MSHA) to include the expansion of services to individuals with diagnosed mental health disorders and substance use disorders, as well as recasting funding priorities to include the development and maintenance of supportive housing solutions.

In late March, following a narrow vote margin, proponents of Proposition 1 announced that the measure won 50.2% to 49.8%, securing enough of a margin to ensure its passage. This measure required a simple majority vote to pass. Under Proposition 1, California will use ~$6.4 billion in bond funding to build housing and residential treatment facilities for people with mental illness and will divert more of the State’s mental health funding to intensive treatment. The Governor's Administration and the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) quickly turned around the notice of funding availability for Round 1 of the program, comprised of $3.3 billion for the development of infrastructure to address the clinical needs of individuals struggling with behavioral health or substance use disorders. A subsequent $2 + billion in funding will be available at the end of 2024 for the development of housing solutions.

Grants Pass Ruling Impacts on California’s Encampments
In one of the final cases to be dispensed from the docket, in late June the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling on The City of Grants Pass v. Oregon case, stating that local governments may enforce laws restricting homeless encampments on sidewalks and other public property. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled it is not “cruel and unusual” 8th Amendment violation punishment for city officials to forbid homeless people from sleeping on the streets or in parks.

This decision removes legal uncertainties regarding local homeless ordinances. Local governments will now be permitted to uphold or enact local ordinances related to homeless populations and encampments.

Historically, since 2018, judicial rulings from the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that it was unconstitutional to enforce anti-camping laws against people who had no home and nowhere to sleep. Local government officials have stated those rulings led to the growth of tent encampments in most cities on the West Coast, and as such, they joined an appeal to the Supreme Court seeking to clarify their authority over public property.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision, Governor Newsom issued an executive order directing state agencies and departments to develop policies for addressing encampments, while encouraging local governments to do the same. According to the new order, state agencies are to model their encampment policies on the approach used by Caltrans, which has been removing camps from highways on and off-ramps, under overpasses, and on other transit agencymaintained land for several years. State agencies are required to give at least 48 hours notice before clearing a camp, store residents’ belongings for at least 60 days, and seek services for displaced individuals from local organizations. If an encampment poses an “imminent threat” to City Council/RSA Agenda 365 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 6 life, health, safety, or infrastructure, agencies can remove it immediately. The order also tasks the California Interagency Council on Homelessness with developing guidance and providing technical assistance to help local leaders establish effective programs.

Flexible Local Homeless Funding and “Local Accountability” The Governor and the Administration continued their search for local accountability related to the spending of state budget homelessness dollars that are directly allocated to local governments throughout the 2024 Legislative session. While the 2024 budget deficit presented an issue for the continuance of local homelessness dollars, ultimately, the funding was restored due to the persistence of local governments and their existing programs. However, the use of funds was the subject of scrutiny.

In 2023, the Joint Legislative Audit Committee initiated an audit of the State’s homelessness funding, including an evaluation of the efforts undertaken by the State to address the growing crisis. With over 180,000 Californians experiencing homelessness in 2023, the State Legislature has committed billions of dollars in funding to prevent and end homelessness. In 2018, the Homeless Emergency Aid Program (HEAP) allocated $500 million in block grants, providing direct assistance to localities in addressing homelessness across California.

Despite notable progress in recent years, local governments, which are primarily responsible for implementing homelessness programs and collecting data, bore the brunt of effectively evaluating program effectiveness and implementing regional plans to evaluate their effectiveness. As the homelessness crisis has worsened, the State has allocated $24 billion over the past five fiscal years for homelessness and housing programs, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office.

Despite budget constraints and proposed cuts, the TPA team in partnership with others were successful in advocating for the restoration of a number of budget programs, including:
• Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention (HHAP): HHAP provides local jurisdictions with flexible funding to support regional coordination and to expand or develop local capacity for addressing immediate homelessness challenges. Local leaders underscored the need for ongoing support through HHAP, arguing that regional collaboration is key to long-term solutions. Their advocacy ensured HHAP funding remained a priority in the state’s budget, allowing jurisdictions to continue addressing the homelessness crisis at the ground level. This funding was restored in line with previous allocations to the tune of $1 billion, annually, with new requirements for local governments who receive direct allocations to create memorandums of understanding (MOUs) with neighboring jurisdictions regarding the disbursement and use of funds.
• Encampment Resolution Funding (ERF): ERF offers competitive grants to help local jurisdictions provide services and supports that improve the health and safety of people living in encampments. It focuses on creating meaningful pathways to stable housing. Local governments successfully argued for the program’s inclusion in the budget, highlighting the urgent need for resources to address the humanitarian challenges of encampments, while also reducing their public health and safety risks. These funds were continued within the state’s budget process, and complement the goals of the Governor’s executive order and Grants Pass decision to remove encampments.

City Council/RSA Agenda 366 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 7 Energy
Income-Tiered Rate Policies and Regulations
The 2024 Legislative Session began with a focus on energy reform, including several proposals to repeal provisions of AB 205 (2022). AB 205 had directed the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to develop income-graduated fixed charge for energy bills for customers of Investor-Owned Utilities (IOUs). Under this measure, the CPUC was tasked with working alongside IOUs to establish income-based rates, which were initially proposed to range from $24 per month for low-income earners to $128 per month for households earning $180,000 or more annually.

The implementation of AB 205's provisions faced criticism from a range of stakeholders.

Environmental groups argued that the proposed joint IOU plan did not sufficiently charge highincome earners their fair share. The solar industry, which relies on high electricity rates to justify the cost of rooftop solar installations, advocated for a shift toward time-differentiated rates to encourage flexible demand. Meanwhile, local agencies called for fixed rates to remain low, with substantial rebates offered to those who electrify by certain deadlines.

These concerns led to multiple legislative proposals aimed at repealing AB 205 or introducing oversight measures to prevent future cost shifts. Among these were AB 1999 (Irwin), which sought to repeal the income-based rate escalator, and AB 1912 (Pacheco), which would have mandated a third-party actuarial review of all legislative proposals affecting energy ratepayers. These reviews would have needed to be completed and considered before any final vote.

Despite the momentum, both legislative proposals were set aside by leadership amid ongoing internal negotiations involving the Legislature, the Administration, and the CPUC. Concerns over high costs for ratepayers, passthrough provisions, and the potential need for IOUs to access sensitive tax information to determine income levels ultimately led the CPUC to reject the original income-escalated charge proposal. Instead, a new structure was adopted, charging residential customers a flat rate of $24.15 per month, with a reduced rate of $6 to $12 for those enrolled in low-income programs. This new rate was implemented by the CPUC in July.

Last Minute Rate Reduction and Clean Energy Bill Proposals As previously mentioned, the final days of the 2024 Legislative Session featured the introduction of numerous late-breaking amendments that inserted new policy proposals into existing bill vehicles. Among these were six measures focused on addressing California’s clean energy challenges, specifically meeting mandates for clean, carbon-free energy and reducing some of the nation’s highest electric bills.

The primary proposal targeting California’s escalating electric bills, AB 3121 (Petrie Norris), sought to provide each household with a modest, one-time credit ranging from $30 to $70. The estimated $500 million in savings would have been drawn from cuts to utility programs benefiting low-income residents and schools. Advocates for these programs argued that the proposed cuts would disproportionately harm low-income Californians and children while offering only a minimal reduction in ratepayers’ utility bills. This measure ultimately failed to pass before the end-ofsession deadline.

Another significant proposal, AB 3264 (Petrie Norris), mandates that the Public Utilities Commission study ways to reduce the costs associated with expanding transmission capacity City Council/RSA Agenda 367 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 8 and report on energy efficiency programs funded through consumers’ utility bills. This bill successfully passed through the legislature under the tight deadline and is now awaiting the Governor’s action.

Other proposals within the late-breaking package that passed the legislative process included SB 1420 (Caballero), which aims to streamline hydrogen facility permitting, and SB 1142 (Menjivar), which seeks to prevent power shutoffs for ratepayers with active payment plans. Two additional bills did not survive the legislative process, including SB 1003 (Dodd), which would have increased oversight of utility wildfire costs. In a statement to the press following the session's close, Senate Pro Tem Mike McGuire expressed his commitment to reintroducing more energyrelated proposals next year to build upon the efforts of this package.

Housing and Land Use
RHNA Reform
As is typical of the Legislature in recent years, the 2024 Legislative Session was keenly focused on housing production and compliance with state housing laws. This included an analysis of the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) process and improvements that could be implemented prior to the start of Cycle 7. In April, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) released its entitled California’s Housing Future 2040: The Next Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), outlining dozens of suggested reforms to improve the RHNA methodology, regional determination, and compliance process.

A series of bill proposals emerged during the session that aligned with the suggested reforms in the report. This included:
• AB 3093 (Ward), which creates two new income categories - Acutely Low Income (ALI) and Extremely Low Income (ELI) - in the Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND), Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), and Housing Element Law. Creating the ELI and ALI categories will require regions and local governments to develop targeted programs and strategies in their housing elements that cater to the needs of Californians at the lowest end of the income spectrum, including homeless individuals and those at risk of homelessness.

This bill drew strong support from the Governor. It passed the Legislature and is awaiting final action.
• SB 7 (Blakespear) makes a number of technical changes to the regional housing needs determination (RHND) process conducted by HCD and the regional housing needs allocation process conducted by HCD or Councils of Governments (COGs). This measure passed the Legislature and is awaiting final action from the Governor.

Other proposals geared toward reforming the RHNA process included AB 2485 (Carrillo), which would require HCD to convene and engage specified stakeholders to consider improvements to the process of determining the housing needs for each region. The bill would also require HCD to publish specified data and information on its website regarding the decision-making process used to determine regional housing needs. While this bill drew a wide array of support from local stakeholders, it was ultimately held in the second house appropriations committee.

City Council/RSA Agenda 368 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 9 Builder’s Remedy
In addition to RHNA reforms, the Legislature this year turned its attention to refining the Builder’s Remedy, a provision within the 1982 Housing Accountability Act (HAA) that prevents local governments from denying housing developments that include 20% lower-income units, even if the project does not conform to local zoning laws—provided the jurisdiction has not adopted a compliant housing element. Although several developers have attempted to invoke the Builder’s Remedy in recent years, they have largely been unsuccessful.

During the session, lawmakers introduced several proposals aimed at clarifying and refining the Builder’s Remedy, focusing on legal interpretation, timing, and specific parameters for development projects. These proposals include:
• AB 1886 (Alvarez): Clarifies that the Builder’s Remedy is triggered by a determination of noncompliance from the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). It also specifies that development standards apply only if the city is in compliance, and projects remain eligible if the application was submitted while the city was non-compliant. • AB 1893 (Wicks): Establishes guidelines regarding density, underlying zoning, and objective standards that a development must meet to qualify for the Builder’s Remedy. It also reduces the required amount of affordable housing for a project to be eligible. • AB 2023 (Quirk-Silva): Introduces a rebuttable presumption of invalidity for housing elements deemed noncompliant by HCD, raising the burden of proof for jurisdictions seeking to challenge or dismiss HCD’s noncompliance determination.

Despite facing opposition from local agencies, all three bills successfully passed the Legislature and are now awaiting action from the Governor.

Coastal Land Use
Coastal land use became a central focus during the 2024 Legislative Session, particularly around addressing regulatory misalignment between the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the California Coastal Commission (CC) regarding housing development in coastal areas. The Coastal Commission, working closely with coastal cities and counties, is responsible for planning and regulating land and water use in the Coastal Zone.

Development in these areas typically requires a special coastal development permit (CDP), either from the Commission or from local governments that have a certified Local Coastal Program (LCP). Currently, 73% of the Coastal Zone is governed by LCPs, allowing local governments to issue CDPs according to detailed planning and design standards. In jurisdictions with certified LCPs, permitting decisions can be appealed to the Coastal Commission under specific circumstances.

This year, the Legislature sought to address tensions between housing production and coastal preservation, with both HCD and the Coastal Commission representing differing priorities. A key legislative goal was to align housing development efforts with the preservation values overseen by the Coastal Commission. Proposals included measures to increase housing density, synchronize housing element updates with local coastal plans, and clarify which agency holds ultimate regulatory authority in the development process.

City Council/RSA Agenda 369 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 10 AB 2560 (Alvarez) addressed the intersection of the state’s Housing Density Bonus Law and coastal protections. The bill aimed to exempt projects taking advantage of Density Bonus incentives, which allow developers to increase housing units in exchange for affordable housing, from Coastal Act requirements. This measure sparked significant debate around balancing housing needs with coastal environmental protections. A series of amendments from environmental groups that authorized the Coastal Commission unilateral authority over developments within the coastal zone made the bill untenable. At the request of the author and with significant input from local agencies, the bill was held.

SB 1077 (Blakespear) focused on simplifying the development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in coastal areas. The bill initially required the Coastal Commission to assist cities and counties in updating their LCPs to streamline the permitting process for ADUs and junior ADUs, thereby promoting housing production while ensuring compliance with coastal regulations. However, significant cost concerns were raised by local governments related to the constant need to update LCPs to accommodate the bill’s goals. Ultimately, the bill was amended to require HCD to provide technical guidance to local governments on how to streamline ADU permitting within the coastal zone.

In addition, SB 951 (Wiener) sought to improve the process of appealing local jurisdiction approvals of coastal development permits. The bill clarifies the grounds for appealing local CDP decisions to the Coastal Commission and authorizes local governments to notify the Commission of final permit actions electronically, among other provisions aimed at enhancing transparency and efficiency.

These legislative efforts underscore the complexity of managing coastal land use in California, as policymakers strive to balance the state’s urgent need for housing with the imperative to protect its valuable coastal resources. It is anticipated that coastal land use issues will continue to emerge as a priority topic next session.

Industrial Land Use Standards
In a familiar legislative maneuver, AB 98—previously stalled earlier this year—was revived to establish design standards, electrification requirements, and minimum setback distances for warehouses located near sensitive receptors such as homes, schools, and hospitals. The bill also mandates that local governments update their circulation elements to incorporate truck routes, signage, parking, and idling restrictions, with enforcement led by the Attorney General.

Weeks before the end of the legislative session, rumors emerged that stakeholders had returned to negotiations to reach a new agreement on warehouse development and zoning standards.

When the language was finalized, the Laborers’ International Union of North America and the California Chamber of Commerce took the lead in advocating for the revised bill. Although CalChamber officially maintained a "neutral" stance, it encouraged its members to support the compromise despite having opposed the prior version of the warehouse bill, AB 1000, from last year. Local government organizations, once again excluded from the drafting process, launched an opposition campaign due to the increased financial and legal burdens imposed on cities and counties. Similarly, environmental justice groups opposed the bill, citing concerns over provisions that would allow warehouse and distribution center development to continue near sensitive areas.

After moving through policy and fiscal committees in the final 72 hours of the session, the bill encountered delays caused by political maneuvering between Senate and Assembly leadership, who were negotiating which bills to prioritize in the final days. Just 30 minutes before the midnight City Council/RSA Agenda 370 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 11 deadline, AB 98 passed the Assembly floor and was transmitted to the Governor. The narrow vote margins and impassioned speeches on both legislative floors underscored the contentious nature of the bill and the rushed legislative process. It is expected that further amendments will be required to address unresolved issues in the next legislative session.

Revenue and Taxation
In 2024, revenue and taxation policy took center stage, with various significant developments, including the looming threat of the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act, ongoing legislative efforts such as ACA 1 (Aguiar-Curry) to provide local governments with more financing tools for housing production, and proposals aimed at reducing impact fees.

Taxpayer Protection Act
After years of opposition, the California Supreme Court ruled unanimously in June, barring the Taxpayer Protection Act from appearing on the November General Election ballot. The measure would have severely restricted the ability of state and local governments to implement or maintain taxes and fees by retroactively nullifying recently passed tax measures, raising voter approval thresholds, and creating legal vulnerabilities for taxes and fees.

The Court’s decision was based on the initiative's far-reaching scope, which it deemed exceeded a simple constitutional amendment and instead represented a fundamental revision of state and local governance, requiring a constitutional convention. Although this outcome was positive for local agencies, it allowed the measure’s proponents to redirect their resources and political influence elsewhere.

ACA 1 / ACA 10 / Proposition 5
The Legislature passed ACA 1 (Aguiar-Curry), which, pending voter approval, would allow local governments to incur bonded indebtedness or impose special taxes for housing and infrastructure projects with 55% voter approval. Initially set for the March primary ballot, ACA 1 was moved to the November 2024 election due to political calculations surrounding the passage of Proposition

1. Concerns from stakeholders like the California Association of Realtors, which sought to exclude smaller properties from the measure’s financing eligibility, led to the introduction of ACA 10 and AB 2810 in 2024. ACA 10 stripped the special tax provisions from ACA 1, leaving only the 55% threshold for bond approval intact. AB 2810 included the compromise with the realtors to exclude the application of bond financing housing projects under 5 units. The revised measure now appears on the November ballot as Proposition 5, which, if approved, would empower local agencies to pass revenue bond measures for affordable housing and public infrastructure projects with a reduced voter threshold.

Impact Fees
Housing affordability remained a central legislative theme in 2024, with impact fees and exactions targeted as contributors to high development costs. A critical decision from the U.S. Supreme Court this year mandated that local governments establish a clear "essential nexus" between development projects and the fees they impose, ensuring that fees are "roughly proportional" to the actual impact of the development. This ruling has the potential to significantly affect local government revenue streams.

City Council/RSA Agenda 371 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 12 In addition, the Legislature advanced several measures aimed at limiting or deferring impact fees, including:

SB 937 (Wiener), which defers certain development fees until a certificate of occupancy is issued.

It also locks in impact fees before a building permit is granted and prohibits indexing fees for inflation or charging interest on deferred fees. While local governments opposed the measure, it passed and may see further refinement in future sessions.

AB 1820 (Schiavo), which creates a framework for developers to receive preliminary and final estimates of project-related fees and exactions within specific timeframes.

Both bills passed the Legislature and are currently awaiting action from the Governor.

Labor and Employee Relations
At the outset of the legislative session, several bills were introduced by progressive lawmakers, with backing from major labor organizations, including the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the California Labor Federation, and the California State Council of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). These labor groups, alongside numerous employee advocacy organizations, have recently prioritized addressing the reported labor shortages in the public sector. According to a recent study by the UC Berkeley Labor Center, vacancy rates in county job positions within three of California's most populous counties are now

1.5 to 2 times higher than they were prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.

In response to these vacancy rates and workforce gaps, several pieces of legislation were introduced, seeking to increase transparency in public sector bargaining unit vacancies and to promote the hiring of internal labor over consultants. These measures also included substantial data reporting requirements for existing consultants and contractors in the public sector, aiming to support arguments in favor of using internal labor groups for essential tasks.

The principal bills—AB 2557 (Ortega) and AB 2651 (McKinnor)—faced significant opposition from local governments and business interests during the legislative process. Despite this resistance, both bills successfully advanced through policy committees, largely along party lines, due to robust support from labor advocates among committee members. However, AB 2557 (Ortega), which would have required extensive reporting and auditing on public sector contracting, failed to pass the Senate Appropriations Committee before the legislative deadline and was shelved for the year. In contrast, AB 2561 (McKinnor), mandating that local public agencies with more than a 20% vacancy rate in any bargaining unit publicly present updates on vacancies, recruitment, and retention efforts at least once per fiscal year, passed the Legislature in the final days of the session and now awaits action by the Governor.

Additionally, two weeks before the legislative session's close, SB 399 (Wahab) was amended.

Originally introduced in 2023, the bill pertains to employee intimidation and aims to prevent employers from retaliating against or threatening employees who refuse to attend mandatory meetings where the employer communicates political or religious opinions. A key concern for local governments is the broad definition of "political," which encompasses issues related to elections, political parties, legislation, regulation, and decisions to join or support political or labor organizations. While the bill’s intent—to prohibit employers from expressing inappropriate political opinions during mandatory meetings—is laudable, its broad language could inadvertently encompass routine job duties of local government employees, such as analyzing state or federal City Council/RSA Agenda 372 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 13 regulations or attending city council meetings where legislation is discussed. Despite only being reintroduced late in the session and facing strong opposition from local government advocates, SB 399 (Wahab) passed and now awaits the Governor's signature.

Public Safety
This year, Governor Newsom and legislative leadership in both houses prioritized addressing retail theft, resulting in a comprehensive public safety package. After several Retail Theft Select Committee hearings, a series of bills emerged and were signed by the governor on August 16 as part of an early action public safety initiative. These measures aim to enhance public safety statewide without amending Proposition 47 (2014). The key bills include:
• AB 1779 (Irwin): restores cross-jurisdictional prosecutions for thefts committed in more than one county.
• AB 1802 (Jones-Sawyer): makes permanent the crime of organized retail theft and the operation of the CHP property crimes task force.
• AB 1960 (Soria): provides enhanced penalties for individuals who take or destroy property while committing a felony (smash and grab).
• AB 1972 (Alanis): expands the CHP property crimes task forces to combat increased levels of cargo theft.
• AB 2943 (Zbur, Speaker Rivas): creates the new crime of unlawful deprivation of a retail business opportunity and makes changes to law on arrest authority, aggregation, and probation terms for theft-related offenses.
• AB 3209 (Berman, Speaker Rivas): authorizes courts to impose a Retail Crime Restraining Order on repeat offenders.
• SB 905 (Wiener): creates a new alternate felony-misdemeanor for any person who forcibly enters a vehicle with the intent to commit a theft
• SB 982 (Wahab): eliminates the sunset date for the crime of retail theft and the existence of a CHP taskforce to analyze organized retail theft activities • SB 1416 (Newman): creates new sentencing enhancements for selling property acquired through shoplifting
Despite these legislative advancements, concerns remain among some public safety advocates that avoiding amendments to Proposition 47 may not sufficiently deter retail theft or enhance community safety. These concerns led to the launch of a ballot initiative, backed by District Attorneys, aiming to introduce stricter penalties for theft and drug-related crimes. Proposition 36 (Drug and Theft Crime Penalties and Treatment-Mandated Felonies Initiative), now qualified for the November ballot, proposes key changes to existing laws, including harsher penalties for serial theft offenders, increased felony charges for organized retail theft involving three or more people, and extended sentences for drug-related offenses involving substances like fentanyl, heroin, and methamphetamine.

Initially, Governor Newsom introduced “poison pill” amendments to his retail theft package, which would have nullified the newly signed bills if Proposition 36 passed. However, following significant backlash, the nullification provisions were removed prior to final approval of the bills.

In November, voters will decide on Proposition 36, which proposes rolling back aspects of Proposition 47 by restoring harsher penalties for serial theft offenders and drug traffickers, among other reforms. The initiative also introduces a "treatment-mandated felony" option for individuals charged with drug possession, allowing for charges to be dismissed upon completion of a City Council/RSA Agenda 373 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 14 rehabilitation program. Additionally, it would require courts to warn drug dealers that they could face murder charges if their actions result in a death.

Because the Governor’s Retail Theft Package avoids amending Proposition 47 and Proposition 36 explicitly seeks to amend the 2014 initiative, both measures could be enacted without conflict, taking effect in January 2025. This dual approach could strengthen public safety by increasing accountability for offenders and providing additional enforcement tools, all while avoiding the pitfalls of past policies that contributed to prison overcrowding. After a decade of debate on Proposition 47’s impact, California voters will have the opportunity to shape the state's approach to addressing retail theft and public safety moving forward.

Fire Insurance
At the conclusion of the 2023 Legislative Session, the Governor and the Insurance Commissioner took significant action through an executive order and regulatory proceedings to enact changes aimed at stabilizing California’s insurance market and retaining insurance companies in the state.

This initiative focused on four key objectives: (1) Expanding insurance coverage in high-risk areas, (2) Modernizing the FAIR Plan to reintegrate members into the standard insurance market, (3) Updating rate review and filing timelines, and (4) Allowing the use of advanced catastrophic modeling tools.

The latest draft regulations, last revised at the beginning of the year, specify the requirements for insurance companies wishing to use forward-looking catastrophe models for setting rates. Under these draft regulations, insurers must either offer policies in high-risk areas that represent at least 85% of their statewide market share or increase the number of plans in these areas by 5%.

Additionally, insurers are required to consider wildfire mitigation efforts implemented by policyholders.

A policy qualifies as being in a high-risk area if it is located in a county or ZIP Code designated as distressed, undermarketed, and high-risk. A county is classified as "distressed" if more than 20% of its residential properties with fewer than five units are rated as “high” or “very high” risk by CAL FIRE. These designations will be reviewed and updated annually. The designated counties currently include Alpine, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Del Norte, El Dorado, Humboldt, Lake, Lassen, Marin, Mariposa, Mendocino, Modoc, Mono, Monterey, Napa, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, San Luis Obispo, Santa Cruz, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Tehama, Trinity, Tuolumne, and Ventura.

Following the release of these draft regulations, the Insurance Commissioner announced additional amendments to the FAIR Plan, California’s insurance program designed to provide coverage to residents and businesses in both urban and rural areas who cannot secure insurance through the standard market. These changes, part of an agreement between the Department of Insurance and the California FAIR Plan, include provisions for recouping losses by imposing surcharges on residential and commercial insurance policies across the state in “extreme worstcase scenarios.” Under the current framework, the FAIR Plan is responsible for paying claims once its reserves, reinsurance, and catastrophe bonds are depleted. The new agreement stipulates that, should these funds be exhausted, insurers will be required to cover up to $2 billion in FAIR Plan claims— $1 billion for residential and $1 billion for commercial policies. Insurers can then, with the insurance commissioner’s approval, temporarily surcharge their policyholders for up to half of the amount assessed. It is important to note that homeowners will not be surcharged for commercial losses; only commercial policyholders will bear those costs. Additionally, insurers may surcharge City Council/RSA Agenda 374 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 15 policyholders for 100% of claims exceeding these amounts, pending the insurance commissioner’s approval.

This restructuring of the FAIR Plan is a component of Commissioner Lara’s broader Sustainable Insurance Strategy, a series of executive actions designed to stabilize California’s insurance market. These actions come in response to the growing reluctance of insurers to issue new policies or renew existing ones, particularly in areas with high wildfire risks, due to the surge in wildfire-related claims.

As insurers have withdrawn from high-risk areas, the number of residential FAIR Plan policies has more than doubled since 2019, reaching approximately 408,000 as of June. Similarly, the number of commercial policies under the FAIR Plan has increased to 11,026.

The FAIR Plan will implement a Plan of Operation that includes the following:
• Expanded Coverage: Introducing a new “high-value” commercial coverage option with limits up to $20 million per building, alongside past increases for residential policies. • Financial Stability: Establishing a sound financial formula to protect policyholders in extreme loss scenarios.
• Improved Transparency: Requiring enhanced public reporting on FAIR Plan activities and customer service metrics.

In alignment with the Administration's and Legislature's objectives, this regulatory process has advanced without intervening legislation during the 2024 Session. Various legislative proposals, including those seeking to increase oversight of insurance modeling tools and mandate consideration of home hardening practices for rate reductions, did not pass due to concerns that they might disrupt market conditions and the ongoing regulatory process. This includes Senator Becker’s SB 1060, which would have required insurers using risk models for underwriting to account for wildfire risk reductions achieved through hazardous fuel reduction, home hardening, and defensible space. The bill would have also authorized the Department of Insurance to examine underwriting models for compliance and issue necessary orders.

The Department of Insurance plans to adopt these regulations by the end of 2024. Issues concerning coverage affordability and availability will likely be addressed through legislation in the coming year.

Transportation
As with many other areas, funding dominated the conversation on transportation in 2024. In 2023, through SB 125, the Legislature appropriated $2 billion from the General Fund, with a promise of an additional $2 billion in 2024, to the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program. These funds were allocated based on a population-based formula for regional transportation planning agencies, offering flexibility to support both transit operations and capital improvements. SB 125 also established the $1.1 billion Zero-Emission Transit Capital Program, which allocated funds for zero-emission transit equipment and operations through both population-based and revenuebased formulas.

However, the state's fiscal challenges in 2024 significantly impacted transportation funding.

Facing a multibillion-dollar General Fund deficit, the Governor's January budget proposal reduced the promised SB 125 funding for 2024-25 from $2 billion to $1 billion. By April, the Department of Finance went further, freezing the $2 billion allocated in the current year. Nevertheless, the City Council/RSA Agenda 375 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 16 Legislature employed creative budgetary tactics, shifting the funding source from the General Fund to cap-and-trade revenues, enabling them to preserve $1 billion in this year’s budget for the SB 125 program, with the remaining $1 billion deferred to future years. In July, the Department of Finance unfroze last year’s funding, allowing regional agencies to finally access the SB 125 resources.

Despite these efforts, budget experts are predicting another deficit in next year's budget, raising concerns that next year's promised transit set-asides may be delayed or cut. While transportation funding was largely preserved this year, the outlook remains uncertain for the future.

On the policy front, the Legislature passed several significant transportation-related measures:
• SB 960 (Wiener) mandates that Caltrans include "complete streets" elements in its asset management plan, system highway management plan, and the performance report for the State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP). The bill also requires Caltrans to adopt a transit priority policy, develop guidelines, and set specific four-year targets for incorporating complete streets facilities into SHOPP.
• SB 1098 (Blakespear) directs the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) to submit a report to the Legislature within two years on the long-term viability of the Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) Rail Corridor. The bill also requires the CalSTA Secretary to convene a working group of stakeholders to develop recommendations for improving coordination and service along the corridor.

These policy measures reflect the Legislature's ongoing efforts to address both immediate transportation needs and long-term sustainability in the face of fiscal challenges.

LOOKING FORWARD
The 2025-26 legislative session marks the start of a new two-year cycle, introducing a fresh slate of bills and policy initiatives when lawmakers reconvene in January. This session will be particularly notable for significant leadership transitions, with over 25% of both legislative houses turning over as new freshman members take office. Additionally, the session will coincide with the final two years of Governor Newsom's administration, as his term concludes in 2026. Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire will also serve his final term under the same limits, initially expected to provide continuity until a longer-serving successor takes the reins. Below is an overview of the key issues and policy debates anticipated to dominate the 2025 session.

Budget Outlook
Leading into this year’s budget deficit, the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) anticipated future structural shortfalls of about $30 billion per year until 2028. The LAO identified spending reductions and revenue (tax) increases as difficult decisions on the horizon. In an election year, tax increases were immediately off the table but could be considered in the future as a component of larger reforms or solutions. To increase state revenue without directly raising taxes, one tool the state used was a suspension of the net operating loss (NOL) deduction for California businesses until 2027. The business community has rallied to reinstate the NOL deduction, or at least guarantee the suspension is not extended even more.

City Council/RSA Agenda 376 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 17 Another target of reform is the State Appropriations Limit, colloquially known as the Gann Limit, which institutes a cap on state and local spending intended to control the growth in year over year spending. Between the 2021-22 and 2022-23 budget years, the state faced issues with the Gann limit as its spending plan exceeded the set limits, which resulted in additional qualified capital outlay spending and taxpayer rebates as a solution to exclude spending from the appropriations limit. The Gann Limit has been considered a constraint on the state’s ability to make investments in its top priorities, so there have been minor reforms suggested by lawmakers and stakeholders.

A recent reform counted realignment revenues to local government against local governments’ limits, which freed up billions of dollars under the state’s limit. Broader reforms would have to go back to the ballot because the Gann Limit was created by Proposition 4 in 1979 and is enshrined in the state’s Constitution.

The most recent cash receipts are 10% above the Budget Act forecast for July, and since April, General Fund agency cash receipts have been $4.2 billion above projections. The summer is not a particularly busy time for revenue collection, and with future deficits still anticipated the state will need more fiscal prudence over the next few years.

Cap-and Trade Reauthorization
California’s Cap-and-Trade Program will reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by setting a firm cap on statewide GHG emissions from major sources, which is measured in metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e). This cap will decline over time.

Each covered entity (major polluter) is required to surrender one “permit to emit” for each ton of GHG emissions they emit. Some covered entities will be allocated some allowances and will be able to buy additional allowances at auction, purchase allowances from others, or purchase offset credits.

The “cap” on GHG emissions that drive global warming is a firm limit on pollution. The cap gets stricter over time. The “trade” part is a market for companies to buy and sell allowances that let them emit only a certain amount, as supply and demand set the price. Trading gives companies a strong incentive to save money by cutting emissions in the most cost-effective ways.

Money secured through the Cap-and-Trade Program goes to fund several programs, including large transportation programs. One of these programs is the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP), which is the state’s most significant source of funding for large-scale public transit projects. Many transit operations and authorities are reliant on TIRCP for State Funding to help build their climate friendly transit projects. Furthermore, many of these same operators and authorities NEED future funding commitments from TIRCP in the coming years in order to meet their Non-Federal cost share obligations, allowing them to stay in major federal funding programs such as the Federal Transit Administration’s New Starts Program.

Large transportation projects need reliable funding over many years as they take years (and sometimes decades) to complete. TIRCP is a five-year program in which the state estimates revenues over the next five years and plans how much each of those years it will be able to provide for each project. The out years comprise the new capacity for the program, so in 2026 the TIRCP program will have limited out-year revenues if Cap and Trade does extend beyond 2030.

If the Legislature and Governor’s Administration do not reauthorize the Cap-and-Trade program this year, there is the very real possibility of California losing out on tens of billions of Federal City Council/RSA Agenda 377 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 18 Dollars. The Governor has committed to tackling the reauthorization before the end of his term in 2026. It is likely the conversations will begin next year as the negotiations may take some time to reach a compromise.

Community Reinvestment
Pending official scheduling, the Assembly Committee on Community Reinvestment, Chaired by Assembly Member Papan (D-San Mateo), will hold an informational hearing during the Legislature’s interim recess to discuss the dissolution of redevelopment, existing local revenue financing tools, and ideas to build upon efforts to create a more equitable system wherein local governments can keep pace in meeting state housing goals and development needs without relying solely on state subsidies. While the specific details of policy reform proposals are still in the works, the hearing signifies a will from the legislature to create and improve revenuegenerating regimes at the local level.

Decline of Transportation Funding
For decades, California has been a national leader in fighting climate change, utilizing many different initiatives and programs to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the state. To pursue this effort, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) regularly updates its Scoping Plan to lay out the state’s strategy for achieving its goals. Among other things, the Scoping Plan includes specific policies targeted at increasing the adoption of zero‑emission vehicles (ZEVs), increasing the use of lower‑carbon fuels, and reducing the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

While these efforts should assist in accomplishing CARB’s mission of GHG reduction, it will come at a cost. In a recent report titled “Assessing California’s Climate Policies – Implications for State Transportation Funding and Programs,” the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) estimates how much meeting the state’s GHG reduction goals could impact existing state transportation revenues and programs. The news is not good.

Specifically, the LAO concludes that CARB’s policy directives for GHG emission reduction will have dramatic negative impacts on the state’s transportation revenues. This is because the vast majority of transportation funding in California is derived from taxes on motor fuels such as gasoline and diesel. If people are driving more fuel-efficient vehicles (or zero-emission vehicles), and are driving fewer miles in total, then the state is collecting less fuel tax revenues.

Compared to current transportation funding levels, the LAO projects dramatic revenue declines over the next decade from the state’s gasoline excise tax ($5 billion or 64 percent), diesel excise tax ($290 million or 20 percent), and diesel sales tax ($420 million or 20 percent). On net, the LAO estimates that if the state follows CARB’s Scoping Plan to reduce GHGs, annual state transportation revenues will decline by $4.4 billion (31 percent) over the next decade as compared to current levels.

The projected revenue declines will result in certain state transportation programs having less capacity to support state and local transportation projects and activities. For instance, the LAO projects funding for Caltrans’ highway maintenance programs will drop by roughly $1.5 billion (26 percent) over the next decade, from $5.7 billion to $4.2 billion. In addition, the LAO estimates that the State Transit Assistance program, which funds local transit operations, will experience funding declines of about $300 million by 2034-35, or about one-third of its total funding.

City Council/RSA Agenda 378 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 19 In cases where programs distribute funding to local governments, such as for local streets and roads and transit, the magnitude of the impacts will vary across jurisdictions. In general, jurisdictions that historically have been more dependent on state funding for their local efforts will experience greater impacts across their transportation systems, likely resulting in reduced services and/or poorer road conditions for their residents.

In order to maintain our local streets and roads and transit funding, one of two things must happen:
either the state needs to reverse its efforts to reduce GHG emissions from the transportation sector (which is highly unlikely), or the state will need to find an alternative funding source for its transportation needs. While the state has several approaches it could pursue to replace the dwindling tax revenues, each comes with various benefits and trade‑offs that will need to be considered.

The LAO proposes options for addressing the funding gaps which include:
• Increasing existing fuel taxes to try and maintain funding levels • Increasing other existing vehicle fees to replace the dwindling fuel tax revenues • Supplementing with other funding sources like the General Fund or Cap-and-Trade revenues • Implementing a new mechanism for collecting transportation revenue e.g. a road charge • Implementing new taxes on alternative fuels and dedicating the revenues to transportation It is possible the Legislature begins serious deliberations on this issue in the coming year. If it pushes this to future years, the problem will continue to grow and more impactful solutions will be required.

Fire Insurance
The public comment period is officially open for CDI’s proposed regulations to allow insurers to use forward-looking “catastrophe modeling” when setting rates, as opposed to using data from historical losses. This model is intended to provide more accurate pricing for insurance rates and has been advocated by insurance companies and the Insurance Commissioner who both cite climate change as a significant risk for more wildfires. Another set of recently implemented reforms for the insurance market will streamline the department’s rate approval process that currently lacks clarity and often slows down new rate requests. The new process will bring transparency and consistency in the rate filing process, which will also demand complete rate filings from insurance companies and good faith from intervenors.

Next, CDI will hold a public hearing on the catastrophe modeling regulations on September 17 and plans to enact the new regulations in December. Also on September 17, the Assembly Insurance Committee will hold an Oversight Hearing in Los Angeles for updates on the progress of CDI’s Sustainable Insurance Strategy. The Legislature will stay acutely involved in reforming California’s insurance market. A proposed trailer bill to expedite insurance rate filings failed to pick up traction and CDI pivoted to the regulatory process, but there will certainly be more legislative action from individual members. So far in 2024, wildfires have burned over 800,000 acres and damaged or destroyed over 1,200 structures. An active wildfire season is a key indicator of legislative activity the following year. Proposals that failed to pass this year will also likely be reintroduced as a starting point for legislative negotiations in early 2025.

City Council/RSA Agenda 379 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 Agenda Item
DATE: 9/24/2024
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: KRISTOPHER J. KOKOTAYLO, CITYATTORNEY
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNION CITY AMENDING SECTION 2.04.400 “MAYORALAND COUNCILMEMBER SALARIES” OF THE

UNION CITY MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCREASE THE COMPENSATION OF THE MAYOR

AND COUNCILMEMBERS
Article XI (“Mayoraland Councilmember Compensation”) Section 2.04.400 (“Mayoraland Councilmember salaries”) of the Union City Municipal Code provides for the payment of salaries to City Councilmembers and the Mayor. City Councilmembers and the Mayor have not received an increase in salary since December 1, 2008.

On September 10, 2024, the City Councilconsidered potential salary adjustments and voted 3-2 to waive full reading and introduce by title only an ordinance that will increase City Counciland Mayoral salaries by $500 per month.

Staff recommends that the City Council consider waiving further reading and adopting an ordinance amending Section 2.04.400 of the Union City Municipal Code ("Mayoral and Councilmember Salaries") to increase the salaries of City Councilmembers and Mayor by $500 per month.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
This item is not directly related to the strategic plan.

BACKGROUND
The monthly salary for the Mayor and City Council is established by City ordinance and codified in Union City Municipal Code (“UCMC”) Section 2.04.400, as required by Government Code Sections 36516 and 36516.1. The Councilmember salaries are set at $1,625 per month and the Mayoral salary is currently set at $2,437 per month.

On September 10, 2024, the City Council considered potential salary adjustments. As part of this consideration, the City Council discussed, among other things: 1) the increase in CPI since the last salary increase in 2008; 2) the Legislation and Policy Committee’s recommendation of a salary increase of $300; 3) the Mayoral and Council salaries of other jurisdictions in Alameda City Council/RSA Agenda 380 Tuesday, September 24, 2024 County; and 4) the pay cap salaries established by SB 329, which is set at $1,600 per month for cities between 50,000 and 75,000 in population and $1,900 per month for cities between 75,000 and 150,000 in population. Attached to this report is a copy of the staff report presented on September 10, 2024.

The City Council voted 3-2 to waive full reading and introduce by title only an ordinance that will increase City Council and Mayoral salaries by $500 per month.

DISCUSSION
As noted above, on September 10, 2024, the City Council waived full reading and introduced by title only an ordinance amending Section 2.04.400 of the Union City Municipal Code to increase the Mayoral and City Council salaries by $500 per month. Thus, the proposed ordinance for adoption reflects an increase in the salary of the Mayor from $2,437 per month to $2,937 per month and an increase in the salaries of Councilmembers from $1,625 per month to $2,125 per month.

Consistent with Government Code requirements, the proposed ordinance includes findings demonstrating the need for the salary increase as the City Council has not received an increase since 2008. The proposed increase is less than the 80% increase that would be permitted by the Government Code and, consistent with state law requirements, the proposed ordinance is now for City Councilconsideration during open session at the second of two regular meetings.

FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed increase in salaries will result in a fiscal impact of $30,000 annually.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council waive further reading and adopt an ordinance amending Section 2.04.400 of the Union City Municipal Code ("Mayoraland Councilmember Salaries") to increase the salaries of City Councilmembers and Mayor by $500 per month.

Prepared by:

Erica Gonzalez, Senior Associate
Submitted by:

Kristopher Kokotaylo, City Attorney
ATTACHMENTS:

Description Type
Proposed Ordinance Ordinance
September 10, 2024 Staff Report Staff Report
City Council/RSA Agenda 381 Tuesday, September 24, 2024

Page 1 of 3 ends

Union City City CouncilSeptember 24, 2024

Union City City Council
September 24, 2024